(018–020) Proposals for a clearer and more concise Article 40 and to resolve conflict between Art. 40.6 and Art. 9.10

The purpose of this set of proposals is to achieve a clearer and more concise Art. 40, which deals with the requirement to indicate a type. Over several editions of the Code, this Article has become in places repetitive (Art. 40.2 and the second sentence of 40.3), tortuously worded (Art. 40.4 and 40.5), too implicit (e.g. “For the purpose of Art. 40.1”), and with important rules lacking prominence (the second sentence of 40.3). There is also a serious conflict between Art. 40.6 and Art. 9.10. Article 40.6 requires indication of the type of a name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below published on or after 1 January 1990 to include one of the words “typus”, “holotypus”, or its abbreviation or equivalent. Without use of these terms, such a name cannot be validly published. However, Art. 9.10 rules that an incorrectly used term denoting a type is treated as an error to be corrected, hence the misuse of “lectotype” or “neotype” can be corrected to “holotype”, thereby satisfying Art. 40.6. But Art. 9 Note 6 claims that a misused term may be corrected to holotype only if Art. 40.6 does not apply. Perhaps the reasoning is that failure to satisfy Art. 40.6 results in a “name” that is not validly published (a designation), with no status under the Code and therefore no type to correct under Art. 9.10. On the other hand, if Art. 9.10 is invoked to correct “lectotype” to “holotype”, Art. 40.6 is satisfied and the name is validly published. This is the conflict, and Art. 9 Note 6 is introducing a new provision—as would constitute an Article—in order to allow Art. 40.6 to prevail. (“Notes have binding effect but, unlike Articles, do not introduce any new provision or concept”, Preface of the Shenzhen Code, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159: xxiv. 2018.) The phrase referring to Art. 40.6 was added to Art. 9 Note 6 by a proposal referred to the Editorial Committee at the Melbourne Congress of 2011 (Art. 9 Prop. X; see McNeill & Turland in Taxon 60: 251. 2011; Flann & al. in PhytoKeys 41: 52. 2014), but the Rapporteurs, Nomenclature Section, and Editorial Committee did not foresee the problem described here. There are names that are currently in “limbo” under the current Shenzhen Code, i.e. it is uncertain whether or not they are validly published. It would not serve nomenclatural stability to penalize authors and disallow valid publication of such names merely because an incorrect term was used to denote the type. This would be bureaucracy for its own sake, particularly because in many cases the authors understandably believed that they were typifying already validly published names. Instead, the conflict in the Code should be removed so that such names can be validly published without any doubt. Accordingly, in the present set of proposals, Art. 40.6 is amended with consequential adjustment to Art. 9 Note 6. Firstly, we present a clean version of what the amended Article 40 would look like if all of the following proposals were accepted. The order of the Articles is based on the dates on which they take effect. Article 40.1 is unchanged: 40.1. Publication on or after 1 January 1958 of the name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below is valid only when the type of the name is indicated (see Art. 7–10; but see Art. H.9 Note 1 for the names of certain hybrids). The first sentence of Art. 40.3 is unchanged and becomes Art. 40.2: 40.2. For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, reference (direct or indirect) to a single species name, or citation of the holotype or lectotype of a single previously or simultaneously published species name, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type (see also Art. 10.8; but see Art. 40.4). Article 40.2 and the second sentence of 40.3 are combined, becoming Art. 40.3, and the date is added to make it explicit that the rule does not apply to names published before 1958 (cf. Art. 9.1bis in Prop. 008 by Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 626–627. 2020); minor adjustments are made to Note 1, Notes 2 and 3 remain unchanged, and Notes 1 and 2 are transposed: 40.3. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 1958, mention of a single specimen, a single gathering or a part thereof, or an illustration is acceptable as indication of the type, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type (but see Art. 40.4) or if it consists of two or more specimens as defined in Art. 8 (see also Art. 40.5). Note 1. Mere citation of a locality does not constitute mention of a single specimen or gathering. Concrete reference to some detail relating to the actual type is required, such as the collector's name, collecting number or date, or unique specimen identifier. Note 2. When the type is indicated by mention of an entire gathering, or a part thereof, consisting of more than one specimen, those specimens are syntypes (see Art. 9.6). Note 3. Cultures of algae and fungi preserved in a metabolically inactive state are acceptable as types (Art. 8.4; see also Rec. 8B and Art. 40.7). Article. 40.6 becomes Art. 40.4; a new second sentence is added to resolve conflict with Art. 9.10; as editorial consequences Art. 9 Note 6 is amended and Art. 40 Ex. 5 is amended or deleted: 40.4. For the name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below published on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the words “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language (see also Rec. 40A.1 and 40A.4). This requirement is also satisfied by use of one of the words “lectotypus” or “neotypus” (or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language), which are to be treated as errors to be corrected under Art. 9.10. In the case of the name of a monotypic (as defined in Art. 38.6) new genus or subdivision of a genus with the simultaneously published name of a new species, indication of the type of the species name is sufficient. Article 40.7 is unchanged and becomes Art. 40.5; Note 4 is unchanged: 40.5. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 1990 of which the type is a specimen or unpublished illustration, the single herbarium, collection, or institution in which the type is conserved must be specified (see also Rec. 40A.5 and 40A.6). Note 4. Specification of the herbarium, collection, or institution may be made in an abbreviated form, e.g. as given in Index Herbariorum (http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih/) or in the World directory of collections of cultures of microorganisms. Articles 40.4 and 40.5 are combined and rewritten, becoming Art. 40.6: 40.6. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 2007, the type indicated in accordance with Art. 40 must always be a specimen (for fossils see also Art. 8.5); an exception is permitted for names of non-fossil microscopic algae and non-fossil microfungi, for which the type may be an effectively published illustration if there are technical difficulties of specimen preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name. Article 40.8 is unchanged and becomes Art. 40.7: 40.7. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 2019 of which the type is a culture, the protologue must include a statement that the culture is preserved in a metabolically inactive state. To achieve the revised Art. 40, as given above, the following three proposals are needed. The proposals all stand independently; none is contingent upon another being accepted or rejected. Editorially renumber the first Article as Art. 40.2, the second one as Art. 40.3; no changes are proposed in the new Art. 40.2 except editorially replace Art. “40.6” with “40.4” in the final cross-reference. “40.2. For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, reference (direct or indirect) to a single species name, or citation of the holotype or lectotype of a single previously or simultaneously published species name, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type (see also Art. 10.8; but see Art. 40.4).” “40.3. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 1958, mention of a single specimen, a single gathering or a part thereof, or an illustration is acceptable as indication of the type, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type (but see Art. 40.4) or if it consists of two or more specimens as defined in Art. 8 (see also Art. 40.5).” Editorially replace “reference to” with “mention of” in Note 1, to accord with the new Art. 40.3, and replace “that consists” with “consisting”; editorially transpose Notes 1 and 2; editorially replace Art. “40.8” with “40.7” in the final cross-reference of Note 3. Editorially renumber Art. 40.6 as Art. 40.4 (and Art. 40.7 as Art. 40.5); editorially add “see also Art. 40.4” to the end of Art. 9.10; editorially amend or delete Art. 40 Ex. 5. “40.4. For the name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below published on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the words “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language (see also Rec. 40A.1 and 40A.4). This requirement is also satisfied by use of one of the words “lectotypus” or “neotypus” (or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language), which are to be treated as errors to be corrected under Art. 9.10. But in In the case of the name of a monotypic (as defined in Art. 38.6) new genus or subdivision of a genus with the simultaneously published name of a new species, indication of the type of the species name is sufficient.” [Art. 9] “Note 6. A misused term may be corrected to lectotype, neotype, or epitype only if the requirements of Art. 7.11 (for correction to lectotype, neotype, and epitype) are met and Art. 40.6 (for correction to holotype) does not apply , in particular inclusion of the phrase “designated here” for typifications on or after 1 January 2001.” Editorially renumber the combined Article as Art. 40.6. “40.6. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 2007, the type indicated in accordance with Art. 40 must always be a specimen (for fossils see also Art. 8.5); an exception is permitted for names of non-fossil microscopic algae and non-fossil microfungi, for which the type may be an effectively published illustration if there are technical difficulties of specimen preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name.” Editorially renumber Art. 40.8 as Art. 40.7. We thank William Woelkerling (La Trobe University) for drawing attention to the contradiction between Art. 33 Ex. 3 and Art. 40 Ex. 5 and thereby the conflict between Art. 40.6 and Art. 9.10. We also thank Heather Lindon (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) for querying the IPNI database and providing the names listed in the Appendix. Aeonium ×bravoanum Bramwell & G. D. Rowley ex Bañares in Vieraea 43: 190. 2015. Cistanthe subsect. Thyrsoideae Hershk. in Phytoneuron 2019-27: 58. 2019. Cistanthe subspeciosa Hershk. in Phytoneuron 2019-27: 56. 2019. Corunastylis sect. Extensae D. L. Jones & M. A. Clem. in Austral. Orchid Rev. 83: 57. 2018, ‘Extensa’. Corunastylis sect. Glanduliferae D. L. Jones & M. A. Clem. in Austral. Orchid Rev. 83: 57. 2018, ‘Glandulifera’. Corunastylis sect. Pachychilae D. L. Jones & M. A. Clem. in Austral. Orchid Rev. 83: 56. 2018, ‘Pachychila’. Cotoneaster uzbezicus Grevtsova ex J. Fryer & B. Hylmö, Cotoneasters Compreh. Guide: 78. 2009. Dendrobium sibuyanense Lubag-Arquiza & al. in Orchid Digest 70: 174. 2006 [see Art. 40 Ex. 5]. Gymnocalycium friedrichii var. angustostriatum Pazout ex Milt in Cactaceae etc. 26(2): 61. 2016. Gymnocalycium valnicekianum var. bicolor H. Till & Amerh. in Gymnocalycium 15: 452. 2002. Magnolia champacifolia Dandy ex Gagnep. in Adansonia 37: 14. 2015. Persea himalayaensis M. Gangop. & V. S. Kumar in Nelumbo 51: 254. 2009. Thingia Hershk. in Phytoneuron 2019-27: 61. 2019. Typha sect. Domingenses Krasnova in Biol. Vnutrenn. Vod 3: 26. 2004 [validation or later isonym: Typha sect. Domingenses Krasnova in Skvortsovia 4: 40. 2018].

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.