This series of articles was written by Shirley van Heck in the INA Newsletter/Journal of Nannoplankton Research between 1990 and 1995 in order to educate the INA membership in the more important aspects of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Many of us found them a useful supplement to the rather dauntingly legalistic code and so they are reproduced here as an alternative source of information.
Note, however, that the code is now available on the WWW and the current version (Vienna 2006) should always be used as the ultimate source of information. Moreover, whilst the principes of the code and the relevant rules have not changed significantly it has been altered and edited. Article numbering has not changed but paragraph content and numbering has (e.g. Art 7 is still Art 7 but it has been edited and the paragraphs renumbered). NB References to the articles dealing with orthography (now Arts 60-62, but Arts. 73-76 until 1994) have been corrected here.
In the text below quotes from the ICBN arehighlightedwhilst discusion of them is given in plain text.
1. Formation of specific epithets (Arts 23)
2. Orthography of names and epithets (Art 60)
3. Names of taxa below the rank of species (Arts 24 to 27)
4. Names of genera and subdivisions of genera (Arts 20 to 22)
5. Names of taxa above the rank of genus (Arts 18, 19)
6. Introductory chapters of the code - general principles and definitions (Arts 3, 4)
7. Effective Publication & overview of Valid Publication (Arts 6.1-2, 29-45).
8. Combinations and citations (Arts. 33, 46)
9. Provisional names, Latin diagnoses (Arts. 34, 35, 36)
10. Types and typification (Arts 7, 9, 37-39)
11. Typification of genera and families (parts of Arts 7, 10, 37)
12. Monotypic genera and miscellaneous complications (parts of Arts 43, 45)
Shirley E. van Heck, Shell International, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Reading through recent literature I come across numerous violations of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Talking to people, such as at the latest INA Meeting in Florence, I find that very few ever look at the ICBN and then often use an outdated copy. So as a continuation of my attempts over the last ten years to persuade people to use the ICBN, I have decided to start this column in the Newsletter. Here, I intend to discuss some of the rules of that seem to cause problems, using examples from the nannoplankton literature. I intend to indicate mistakes that have been made, and offer corrections for them - no slight is intended!
This first issue will begin to deal with species names, or rather: specific epithets as they are known in the ICBN. Although mistakes on this subject do not influence validity, they are the mistakes most commonly made, and a topic on which I am often questioned. The relevant sections in the ICBN are Art. 23 and Art. 60. I will discuss Art. 23 in this issue, and the relevant parts of Art. 60 in the next.
23.1: The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the name of the genus followed by a single specific epithet in the form of an adjective, a noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition, but not a phrase in the ablative (see Art.23.6(c)). If an epithet consists of two or more words, these are to be united or hyphenated. An epithet not so joined when originally published is not to be rejected but, when used, is to be united or hyphenated (see Art. 60.9).
23.2: The epithet in the name of a species may be taken from any source whatever, and may even be composed arbitrarily (but see Art.60.1).
23.4: The specific epithet may not exactly repeat the generic name with or without the addition of a transcribed symbol (tautonym).
23.5: The specific epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a substantive, agrees grammatically with the generic name (see Art.32.5).
N.B. Articles not directly relevant to nannofossils have been left out, as well as the examples and recommendations, which will be discussed later.
Basically, Art.23.1 says a specific epithet can have three different forms: 1. an adjective, 2. a noun in the genitive, or 3. a noun. In the first case, when we use an adjective, Art.23.5 applies, and this is what causes problems in many cases. The problem is that you have to know some Latin grammar to know how the termination changes with the change of gender, so here is a concise overview:
masculine: crassus grandis constans minor asper niger
feminine: crassa grandis constans minor aspera nigra
neutral: crassum grande constans minor asperum nigrum
It is obviously important to know the gender of the generic name for this, but I will discuss that when discussing generic names. Examples: Biscutum depravatus (Grun & Zweili 1980) Bown 1987 should be B. depravatum; Biscutum grandis Bown 1987 should be B. grande. Tegumentum tenuis (Black 1971) Crux 1989 should be Tegumentum tenue.
The second case mentioned, a noun in the genitive, refers to epithets named after people or places (such as cruxii, noeliae). Name formation is described in Art.60 and so will be discussed later. These names do not change their termination. The third case, a noun, causes many mistakes because often these are not recognised as such. Classical example by now are the epithets 'umbilicus' (navel), and 'murus' (wall), which do not change their termination because they are not adjectives but nouns. Therefore the correct combinations are Reticulofenestra umbilicus, and not umbilica, and Micula murus instead of Micula mura. Thus, in order to get the termination correct, you will have to check the meaning of an epithet either in the original publication or in a Latin or Greek dictionary.
23A.1: Names of men and women and also of countries and localities used as specific epithets should be in the form of substantives in the genitive or of adjectives (see also Art.60,Recs.60C and D).
23A.2: The use of the genitive and the adjectival form of the same word to designate two different species of the same genus should be avoided. Recommendation 23B
23B.1: In forming specific epithets, authors should comply also with the following suggestions:
a - To use Latin terminations insofar as possible
b - To avoid epithets which are very long and difficult to pronounce in Latin
c - Not to make epithets by combining words from different languages.
d - To avoid those formed of two or more hyphenated words
e - To avoid those which have the same meaning as the generic name (pleonasm)
f - To avoid those which express a character common to all or nearly all the species of a genus
g - To avoid in the same genus those which are very much alike, especially those which differ in their last letters or in the arrangement of two letters
h - To avoid those which have been used before in any closely allied genus
i - Not to adopt epithets from unpublished names found in correspondence, travellers' notes, herbarium labels, or similar sources, attributing them to their authors, unless these authors have approved publications
j - To avoid using the names of little-known or very restricted localities, unless the species is quite local.
We do not have many problems with these recommendations, although I could quote examples for each of them. They are not binding, but it is still wise to keep an eye on them, for in several cases recommendations have been promoted to rules.
One final remark: I have often heard
people say they are not bothered with trivial matters such as correct spelling,
but quite apart from the fact that it looks sloppy to make these mistakes, it
is simply more efficient to spell a name correctly, and thereby facilitate
retrieval, comparison and editing of names, particularly by computer systems.
Shirley E. van Heck, NAM, Assen, The Netherlands
Editorial note: I have corrected the Article numbering here since the original article (van Heck 1994) was based on the Berlin (1988) code in which this was article 73. This changed in the Tokyo (1994) code to Art 60, and has stayed the same ever since.
This is the second issue dealing with specific epithets. This time I discuss Art. 60., which deals with the orthography of names and epithets, or in other words: how to form a name. This article with its examples and recommendations takes up about six pages. I have omitted paragraphs that deal with rare cases and are not normally a problem. The first paragraph is:
60.1. The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographic or orthographic errors and the standardization imposed by Arts. 60.8 (compounding forms), 60.9 (hyphens) and 60.10 (terminations; see also Art.32.5).
This means that you cannot change the spelling of a name according to your taste or current fashion. You may only (and sometimes must) change the spelling when the original author did not form a name according to the rules (as we will see in a moment). I discuss articles 60.9 and 60.11, but not 60.8 which is rather long and does not normally pose a problem.
60.6. Diacritical signs are not used in Latin plant names. In names (either new or old) drawn from words in which such signs appear, the signs are to be suppressed with the necessary transcription of the letters so modified; for example ä, ö, ü become respectively ae, oe, ue; é, è, ê become e, or sometimes ae; ñ becomes n; ø becomes oe; å becomes ao. The diaeresis, indicating that a vowel is to be pronounced separately from the preceding vowel (as in Noël), and the ligurates .... are permissible.
I have changed the one example here to a well-known case, and omitted the line about the ligurates because they are not relevant, and awkward to use.
60.9. The use of a hyphen in a compound epithet is treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen, except if an epithet is formed of words that usually stand independently, when a hyphen is permitted (see Arts. 23.1 and 23.3).
As an example of a hyphen to be deleted the ICBN quotes pseudo-planatus; it implies that in names like Eu-discoaster the hyphen should be deleted. On the other hand, the hyphen in perch-nielseniae is allowed.
60.11. The use of a termination (for example -i, -ii, -ae, -iae, -anus, or -ianus) contrary to Rec. 60C.1 is treated as an error to be corrected (...)
This is of course a classical source of mistakes. People tend to quote names the way they were introduced, even if they are wrong. And although the spelling is indicated in a recommendation, this paragraph clearly states such terminations are to be corrected! So let's move on to that recommendation. I have replaced the names used in the examples with others known to you. The hyphens in the examples are used only to set off the appropriate termination.
60C.1. Modern personal names may be given a Latin termination and used to form specific and infraspecific epithets as follows (but see Rec. 60C.2):
(a) If the personal name ends in a vowel or -er, substantive epithets are formed by adding the genitive inflection appropriate to the sex and number of the person(s) honoured (e.g. martini-i for Martini (m), shumenko-i for Shumenko (m), wise-i for Wise (m), stradner-i for Stradner (m), aubry-ae for Aubry (f), mueller-ae for Müller (f), except when the name ends in -a, in which case adding -e (singular) or -rum (plural) is appropriate (e.g. okada-e for Okada (m), erba-e for Erba (f)).
(b) If the personal name ends in a consonant (except -er), substantive epithets are formed by adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus the genitive inflection appropriate to the sex and number of the person(s) honoured (e.g. young-i-i for Young (m), manivit-i-ae for Manivit (f)).
The next two paragraphs cover formation of adjectival names. This is a mode of name formation rarely used by nannoplankton workers, but it is useful to know.
(c) If the personal name ends in a vowel, adjectival epithets are formed by adding -an- plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g. Corisphaera hasleana for Hasle), except when the personal name ends in -a in which case -n- plus the appropriate inflection is added.
(d) If the personal name ends in a consonant, adjectival epithets are formed by adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus -an- (stem of adjectival suffix) plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g. Rhabdosphaera blackmaniana for Blackman).
Note that since these are adjectives the termination depends on the gender of the genus, not the gender of the person the species is named after.
60C.2. Personal names already in Greek or Latin, or possessing a well-established latinized form, should be given their appropriate Latin genitive to form substantive epithets (e.g. verdenii from Verdenius). (However, modern personal names are subject to the provisions of Art. 60.11.) Treating modern names as if they were in Third Declension should be avoided (e.g. crucis from Crux).
60C.5. Prefixes and particles ought to be treated as follows:
(a) The Scottish patronymic prefix "Mac", "Mc" or "M", meaning "son of", should be spelled "mac" and united with the rest of the name, e.g. macintyrei after MacIntyre.
(b) The Irish patronymic prefix "O" should be united with the rest of the name or omitted.
(c) A prefix consisting of an article, e.g. le, la, l', les, el, il, lo, or containing and article e.g. du, de la, des, del, della, should be united with the name.
(d) A prefix to a surname indicating ennoblement or canonization should be omitted, e.g. orbignyi after d'Orbigny.
(e) A German or Dutch prefix when it is normally treated as part of the family name, as often happens outside its country of origin, e.g. in the United States, may be included in the epithet, e.g. vancouveringii after Vancouvering, but should otherwise be omitted, e.g. hintei after van Hinte.
Only two more recommendations should be mentioned here (the others deal with generic names or are not important for us):
60D.1. An epithet derived from a geographical name is preferably an adjective and usually takes the termination -ensis, -(a)nus, -inus, or -icus. (e.g. Ommatolithus australiensis, Palaeomicula maltica, Conusphaera mexicana).
There is, however, no rule (yet) that you must correct the termination if it was not formed according to this recommendation.
60H.1 The etymology of new names and epithets should be given when the meaning of these is not obvious.
Anyone who has ever juggled with dictionaries to find out just how and whether a specific epithet should change with a change of genus will appreciate the sense of this recommendation.
Much of this section has dealt with recommendations, but as I have stated before, most of them make good sense, and it is always wise to stick to recommendations as they have a habit of graduating into rules.
Shirley E. van Heck, NAM, Assen, The Netherlands
Article 4.1 of the ICBN states that ...... A plant may ... be assigned to taxa of the following ranks (in descending sequence) regnum, subregnum, divisio, subdivisio, classis, subclassis, ordo, subordo, familia, subfamilia, tribus, subtribus, genus, subgenus, sectio, subsectio, series, subseries, species, subspecies, varietas, subvarietas, forma, subforma. Having dealt with specific epithets in the last two issues we shall now look at names of taxa below the rank of species. These are dealt with in articles 24 to 27.
24.1: The name of an infraspecific taxon is a combination of the name of a species and an infraspecific epithet connected by a term denoting its rank.
An item often overlooked in this respect is that the infraspecific epithet should be preceded by a term denoting its rank. This applies not only when introducing a new taxon, but also when quoting one, since the article clearly states that this term is part of the name. Therefore Discoaster tanii nodifer, which is commonly used, should correctly be cited as Discoaster tanii subsp. nodifer. Although the term is abbreviated as 'subsp.' in the ICBN, the abbreviation 'ssp.' is also very common, and can be considered correct.
24.2: Infraspecific epithets are formed as those of species and, when adjectival in form and not used as substantives, they agree grammatically with the generic name (see Art.32.5).
This implies that the rules outlined in the previous two issues also apply here. When quoting the reference to Art.32.5 in the previous issues, I neglected to quote the article and show its relevance, so I shall do so here:
32.5: Names published with an incorrect Latin termination but otherwise in accordance with this Code are regarded as validly published; they are to be changed to accord with Arts. 17-19 [super-generic taxa], 21 [genera], 23, and 24, without change of the author's name or date of publication (see also Art. 60.11)
The explanations in square brackets are mine, the remaining Articles have been discussed previously. We will return to this article in a future issue.
Arts. 24.3 and 24.4 have never caused us problems, and I doubt they ever will, so I shall omit them. The next one, however, has caused confusion:
24.5: Infraspecific taxa within different species may bear the same epithets; those within one species may bear the same epithets as other species (but see Rec. 24B).
This recommendation is:
24B.1.: Authors proposing new infraspecific epithets should avoid those previously used for species in the same genus.
This is a sensible recommendation, because a change of rank might otherwise cause problems. However, if the recommendation is not followed, the Article clearly states that this does not make the taxon invalid. Example: Marthasterites nunnii was introduced as a nomen novum for Marthasterites bramlettei. The latter was thought to be invalid because of the existence of the name Marthasterites furcatus var. bramlettei. Because of Art.24.5, however, it is clear that M. bramlettei is the correct name, and M. nunnii is superfluous (for a fuller discussion see van Heck 1980). If, however, M. furcatus var. bramlettei were to change rank, a new name would have to be introduced for it to avoid homonymy.
In this context it might be useful to quote one more article:
64.4: The names of two subdivisions of the same genus, or of two infraspecific taxa within the same species, even if they are of different rank, are treated as homonyms if they have the same epithet and are not based on the same type. The same epithet may be used for subdivisions of different genera, and for infraspecific taxa within different species.
Example: If someone were to introduce 'Marthasterites furcatus ssp. bramlettei' then this should be regarded as a homonym of the variety with the same name, and the subspecies would be illegitimate.
25.1: For nomenclatural purposes, a species or any taxon below the rank of species is regarded as the sum of its subordinate taxa, if any. In fungi ....
This is a straightforward, but important concept. Example: Quoting Umbilicosphaera sibogae implies U. sibogae var. foliosa as well as U. sibogae var. sibogae.
26.1: The name of any infraspecific taxon that includes the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the species to which it is assigned is to repeat the specific epithet unaltered as its final epithet, but not followed by an author's name (see Art.46). Such names are termed autonyms (Art.6.8; see also Art.7.21).
26.2: The first valid publication of a name of an infraspecific taxon that does not include the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the species automatically establishes the corresponding autonym (see also Arts. 32.6 and 57.3)
In practice two problems seem to occur:
1. Not all authors are aware that in introducing a subspecies they automatically introduce the subspecies containing the type of the species. Thus, they are inclined to formally describe both subspecies (which is useful but not necessary), and to attach their name to the autonym (which is incorrect).
2. Citation of the name of the subspecies containing the type causes some problems. The code states that the subspecies should not be followed by an authors name, but in Art.32.6 (referred to in Art. 26.2) it says that this subspecies is established at the time the other subspecies was introduced. Fortunately, the code gives examples (Art.57, Ex. 7-9) which we might translate as follows:
In introducing Lithraphidites alatus Thierstein 1972 ssp. magnus the authors automatically introduced Lithraphidites alatus Thierstein ssp. alatus (the fact that they actually named the latter is irrelevant), which they cited as Lithraphidites alatus alatus Thierstein, 1972. According to the ICBN the subspecies should have been cited as follows: Lithraphidites alatus Thierstein 1972 ssp. alatus (1987) and Lithraphidites alatus Thierstein ssp. magnus Covington & Wise 1987. The addition of (1987) behind the autonym is the correct citation as given in the code, but it may be confusing, and perhaps better omitted.
The other articles referred to are not relevant at this point. The last article on infraspecific epithets should be well known:
27.1: The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon may not repeat unchanged the epithet of the correct name of the species to which the taxon is assigned unless the two names have the same type.
Finally there are some detailed recommendations on dealing with subordinate taxa. Since in the nannoplankton literature more than one rank below the level of species is exceptional, I shall omit these. If, however, you do want to subdivide subordinate taxa, make sure you have the right order, as given above (Art.4.1).
Shirley E. van Heck, NAM, Assen, The Netherlands FROM INA Newsletter 13/1
In this issue we shall discuss the names of genera and subdivisions of genera, as dealt with in section 3 of chapter 3 of the ICBN, Articles 20 to 22.
20.1: The name of a genus is a substantive in the singular number, or a word treated as such, and is written with a capital initial letter (see Art. 60.2). It may be taken from any source whatever, and may even be composed in an absolutely arbitrary manner.
20.2: The name of a genus may not coincide with a technical term currently used in morphology unless it was published before 1 Jan. 1912 and accompanied by a specific name published in accordance with the binary system of Linnaeus.
20.3: The name of a genus may not consist of two words, unless these words are joined by a hyphen.
20.4: The following are not to be regarded as generic names:
(a) Words not intended as names
(b) Unitary designation of species
This article does not seem to cause any problems. At least, I can't recall any contravention of it. The third paragraph, however, warrants some discussion. Contrary to its equivalent for specific epithets, that states that "an epithet not so joined is not to be rejected but, when used, is to be united or hyphenated", the discussion and examples accompanying this rule for generic names actually state that such a name is to be rejected. Theoretically this could be a problem, since such a name is not defined as invalid nor illegitimate in Art. 6: it appears to be an omission in the ICBN. Fortunately it is not a real problem, as the only examples I can think of (Eu-discoaster, Helio-discoaster) were published with a hyphen.
More controversial, perhaps, are some of the recommendations. Again I must stress that recommendations are not to be ignored, as they often evolve into rules.
20A.1. Authors forming generic names should comply with the following suggestions:
a) To use Latin terminations insofar as possible
b) To avoid names not readily adaptable to the Latin language
c) Not to make names which are very long or difficult to pronounce in Latin
d) Not to make names by combining words from different languages
e) To indicate, if possible, by the formation or ending of the name the affinities or analogies of the genus
f) To avoid adjectives used as nouns
g) Not to use a name similar to or derived from the epithet of one of the species of the genus
h) Not to dedicate genera to persons quite unconnected with botany or at least with natural science
i) To give a feminine form to all personal generic names, whether they commemorate a man or a woman (see Rec. 60B).
j) Not to form generic names by combining parts of two existing generic names .... because such names are likely to be confused with nothogeneric names. [in hybrids].
Only a few of these stand out as necessary to keep in mind. The most common contravention of a) are generic names with Greek terminations, such as Corollithion, Rhombolithion, Stephanolithion. c) may be considered subjective, but I would vote for Pseudotriquetrorhabdulus as an example. h) implies that although it is perfectly alright to name a species after your girlfriend or your father, you should not do that with a genus. But perhaps the one least known and most important is point i), which is further discussed in Art. 60 and Rec. 60B.
I would like to refer to INA Newsletter 12(2) where I discussed the relevant part of Art.60. The recommendation is as follows:
60B.1. When a new name for a genus, subgenus, or section is taken from the name of a person, it should be formed as follows:
a)When the name of the person ends in a vowel, the letter -a is added, except when the name ends in -a, when -ea is added, or in -ea, when no letter is added.
(thus Emiliania after Emiliani, Hondaea after Honda)
b)When the name of the person ends in a consonant, the letters -ia are added; when the name ends in -er, the terminations -ia and -a are both in use.
(e.g. not Prinsius but Prinsia after Prins, not Haqius but Haqia after Haq, and Stradneria after Stradner, not Kamptnerius but Kamptneria after Kamptner).
c)In latinized personal names ending in -us this termination is dropped before applying the procedure described under a) and b).
Unlike the equivalent recommendation for specific epithets, there is no rule that states that the use of a termination contrary to the recommendation is to be treated as an error to be corrected. So Kamptnerius, Haqius and Prinsius are the correct forms, even though Kamptneria, Haqia and Prinsia would have been preferable.
In Chapter VII on orthography, where Art. 60 is found, there are a few more rules referring to generic names. Most are not very relevant to nannoplankton, but some are helpful:
62.3: Arbitrarily formed generic names or vernacular names or adjectives used as generic names, whose gender is not apparent, take the gender assigned to them by their authors. If the original author failed to indicate the gender, the next subsequent author may choose a gender, and his choice, if effectively published (...), is to be accepted.
62.4: Generic names ending in -oides or -odes are treated as feminine and those ending in -ites as masculine, irrespective of the gender assigned to them by the original author.
e.g.: Flabellites oblongus, Ceratolithoides arcuata, but Ceratolithoides aculeus, since the latter is a noun!
I shall skip the rules dealing with the names of subdivisions of genera, since these are not normally used in nannoplankton literature. That then only leaves the supra-generic taxa to be discussed next time.
Shirley E. van Heck, NAM, Assen, The Netherlands FROM INA Newsletter 13/3
This is the last installment dealing with the formation of names of taxa, and discusses taxa above the rank of genus. I discuss the names of families first (Art.18), since they are the most commonly used.
18.1: The name of a family is a plural adjective used as a substantive; it is formed from the genitive singular of a legitimate name of an included genus by replacing the genitive singular inflection (Latin -ae, -i, -us, -is; transliterated Greek -ou, -os, -as, or -ous, including the latter's equivalent -eos) with the termination -aceae. For generic names of non-classical origin, when analogy with classical names is insufficient to determine the genitive singular, -aceae is added to the full word. For generic names with alternative genitives the one implicitly used by the original author must be maintained.
Despite its length and complicated structure, the application of this rule is no problem in recent literature. Only in the old literature do we find terminations of the wrong rank applied, or terminations derived from the zoological nomenclature. Correct examples are: Eiffellithaceae from Eiffellithus, Coccolithaceae from Coccolithus.
18.2: Names intended as names of families, but published with their rank denoted by one of the terms "order" (ordo) or "natural order" (ordo naturalis) instead of "family"' are treated as having been published as names of families.
Fortunately I know of no examples in nannoplankton literature, as it could be difficult to judge what the author intended. The next rule is more tricky:
18.3: A name of a family or subdivision of a family based on an illegitimate generic name is illegitimate unless conserved. Contrary to Art. 32.1(b) such a name is validly published if it complies with the other requirements for valid publication.
Again we have the distinction between invalid (referred to in Art.32) and illegitimate. The distinction is, in summary, that an invalid name has no status, and as a result, is treated as if it were never published. In the case of family names, the only distinction is that an illegitimate name might be conserved, whereas an invalid name cannot be conserved. Since the process to have a name conserved involves a long legal battle through several publications, committees and the botanical congress, nannoplankton names are unlikely ever to be conserved, and this article is of little practical value to us.
18.4: When a name of a family has been published with an improper Latin termination, the termination must be changed to conform with the rule, without change of the author's name or date of publication (see Art. 32.5).
I printed this rule in bold face because it is important. Art.32.5 states the same, only more general. The point is, that in the past many names were published with a wrong termination . These names were rejected, either because the present rule did not exist or was overlooked. Because the current ICBN supercedes all previous editions, these names must be taken into account. The index published by Loeblich & Tappan (1966 e.a.) contains some examples. To name a few: the name Coccolithidae was introduced by Poche in 1913, while the name Coccolithaceae was used by Kamptner in 1928. Although the termination was wrong, the family name should be cited as Coccolithaceae Poche, 1913. Haeckel introduced the family name Rhabdosphaeralen in 1894, Ostenfeld introduced Rhabdosphaerales as a family name in 1899, and Lemmermann introduced Rhabdosphaeraceae in 1908. The name Rhabdosphaeralen is invalid because it does not have a latin termination. The name Rhabdosphaerales does have a latin termination but needs to be corrected, so the name should be quoted as Rhabdosphaeraceae Ostenfeld 1894.
Art. 18.5 and Art. 18.6 are not relevant to nannoplankton. No recommendations are attached to this Article.
Article 19 deals with the names of taxa with a rank between family and genus: subfamily, tribe, subtribe. Although not popular in recent literature, these categories have been used in the past, and shall be dealt with briefly.
19.1: The name of a subfamily is a plural adjective used as a substantive; it is formed in the same manner as the name of a family (Art. 18.1) but by using the termination -oideae instead of -aceae.
19.2: A tribe is designated in a similar manner, with the termination -eae, and a subtribe similarly with the termination -inae.
19.3: The name of any subdivision of a family that includes the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the family to which it is assigned is to be based on the generic name equivalent to that type, but not followed by an author's name (...). Such names are termed autonyms (...).
(...) indicates a reference to further articles with clarifications and definitions, that are not important here. As this situation is analogous to that of a subspecies (Art.26), and was discussed in detail in a previous issue (vol. 12.3), it needs no further explanation. The same is true for the next rules:
19.4: The first valid publication of a name of a subdivision of a family that does not include the type of the adopted, legitimate name of the family automatically establishes the corresponding autonym (...).
19.5: The name of a subdivision of a family may not be based on the same generic name as the family or of any subdivision of the same family unless it has the same type as that name.
19.6: When a name of a taxon assigned to one of the above categories has been published with an improper Latin termination, such as -eae for a subfamily or -oideae for a tribe, the terminator must be changed to accord with the rule, without change of the author's name or date of publication (...).
Art.19.7 is not relevant for us, and the one recommendation is rather obscure, and does not seem to apply either.
That leaves us with the names of higher ranks: order, class, division and kingdom, dealt with in Articles 16 and 17. Since very few people deal with these, I see no merit in copying them here. The philosophy is the same, although these names do not have to be based on a generic name, and may be descriptive.
This wraps up the rules on the nomenclature of taxa, Chapter III of the ICBN.
Shirley E. van Heck, NAM, Assen, The Netherlands
In the previous issues I have discussed the formation of names. Now, before discussing important issues dealing with validity, I think it is sensible to discuss the introductionary chapters of the code, which deal with general principles and definitions.
The Code starts with a Preamble, explaining how the Code works, and containing some axioms. In this section there are a few important remarks:
9: In the absence of a relevant rule or where the consequences of rules are doubtful, established custom is followed.
This axiom is an important escape in a few cases where the rules do not offer a clear solution. This rule was for instance invoked for retaining the name Pseudoemiliania lacunosa (see: van Heck, 1990).
10: This edition of the Code supersedes all previous editions.
This is of course important to know, for it implies in some cases that names, valid under a previous edition of the Code, are no longer valid. It is not relevant under which edition of the Code a name was published. A name, valid at publication, may no longer be valid under the new Code. It is therefore important to always refer to the latest edition of the Code when deciding on validity.
After the Preamble, and before starting on the Rules, Division I of the Code contains the Principles:
Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological nomenclature. The code applies equally to names of taxonomic groups treated as plants whether or not these groups were originally so treated.
There is, however, one rule that does have a bearing on validity under zoological rules:
45.4. If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code ..... If the taxon is treated as belonging to the algae, any of its names need satisfy only the requirements of the pertinent non-botanical code for status equivalent to valid publication under the botanical Code (..).
This applies to some of our older names, to which the zoological code was applied. Note, however, that this rule is not automatically reversible. A name to which the zoological code was applied, and that is valid under that code, is thereby valid under the ICBN. But if that name was not valid under the zoological code, but is in accordance with the botanical code, it may still be valid.
The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined by means of nomenclatural types.
There are a lot of complicated rules on nomenclatural types, which shall be dealt with in a future issue.
The nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of publication.
Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name, the earliest that is in accordance with the Rules, except in specified cases.
Scientific names of taxonomic groups are treated as Latin regardless of their derivation.
The rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited.
This latter principle therefore enforces the last axiom of the Preamble.
Division II of the Code contains the rules and recommendations. Chapter I is titled: RANKS OF TAXA, AND THE TERMS DENOTING THEM.
Most of the articles in this section cause no problems, so I shall quote only a few that are of interest.
3.1. The principal ranks of taxa in ascending sequence are: species (species), genus (genus), family (familia), order (ordo), class (classis), division (divisio), and kingdom (regnum). Thus, except for some fossil plants (see Art. 3.3), each species is assignable to a genus, each genus to a family, etc.
3.3. Because of the fragmentary nature of the specimens on which the species of some fossil plants are based, the genera to which they are assigned are not assignable to a family, although they may be referable to a taxon of higher rank. Such genera are known as form-genera (forma-genera).
This type of form-genera is commonly used for fossil sporomorphs, but one may wonder whether the principle is not equally applicable to nannofossils, at least to those groups of which no recent representatives are known. As, however, this principle has not been applied so far in nannoplankton literature, I would not recommend to start doing so now.
4.1. If a greater number of ranks of taxa is required, the terms for these are made either by adding the prefix to the terms denoting the ranks or by the introduction of supplementary terms. A plant may thus be assigned to taxa of the following ranks (in descending sequence): regnum, subregnum, divisio, subdivisio, classis, subclassis, ordo, subordo, familia, subfamilia, tribus, subtribus, genus, subgenus, sectio, subsectio, series, subseries, species, subspecies, varietas, subvarietas, forma, subforma.
4.2. Further supplementary ranks may be intercalated or added, provided that confusion or error is not thereby introduced.
These are the main informative rules of Chapter I. The sections of Chapter II are lengthy and important, and will be left for future issues.
Shirley E. van Heck, Sarawak Shell Bhd., Lutong, Sarawak FROM INA Newsletter 14/3
Chapter II of Division II of the ICBN contains four sections. These are all full of cross-references to later articles, mostly in Chapter IV, so it may become quite a complicated matter to discuss them. Nonetheless, I propose we just start at the beginning, follow the references, and see where they take us. This will lead us criss-cross through the code, if you prefer a more orderly course, I suggest you buy the book!
Section 1 consists of Art.6, in which effective publication, and valid, legitimate and correct names are defined. Section 2 contains Arts. 7 - 10, and deals with typification, while sections 3 (Arts. 11 - 12) and 4 (Arts. 13- 15) deal with priority.
6.1. Effective publication is publication in accordance with Arts. 29-31.
These three articles are to be found in Chapter IV (effective and valid publication), of which they form section 1: conditions and dates of effective publication.
29.1. Publication is effected, under this Code, only by distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to the general public or at least to botanical institutions with libraries accessible to botanists generally. It is not effected by communication of new names at a public meeting, by the placing of names in collections or gardens open to the public, or by the issue of microfilm made from manuscripts, type-scripts or other unpublished material.
This is a rather controversial rule, as it does not define how many copies should be available, or how many libraries should contain copies. In practice, any printed material that is freely for sale is considered effectively published (and that includes this Newsletter). Anything else is dubious. Unpublished theses are generally excluded. They are usually kept at one university, and although they may be available for inspection, they cannot be ordered, and are therefore, for all practical purposes, not available to the general public.
The other paragraphs of this article, although important, are fortunately not relevant to the nannoplankton literature as they deal with handwritten material, catalogues, etc.
30.1. The date of effective publication is the date on which the printed matter became available as defined in Art. 29. In the absence of proof establishing some other date, the one appearing in the printed matter must be accepted as correct.
This is another important rule, and has led to much confusion. Many publications actually appear later than the official publication date. Some publications carry the printing date on the back, and this printing date can often be seen to be up to a year later than the bibliographic reference! Examples are: the older issues of Cahiers de Micropaléontologie, and the earlier issues of the DSDP (see van Heck 1980). The same holds true for the following:
30.2. When separates from periodicals or other works placed on sale are issued in advance, the date on the separate is accepted as the date of effective publication unless there is evidence that it is erroneous.
It is a good idea to put the date on any publication or reprint you receive, to have at least some guide to the correct date.
The rest of this section is not relevant to nannoplankton, so we may return to Art. 6:
6.2. Valid publication of names is publication in accordance with Arts. 32-45 or H.9 (see also Art. 75).
H.9 deals with hybrids, so we need not worry about that. The remainder of the articles, however, take up quite a few pages, and in themselves contain again numerous cross-references to other articles, so they will take several issues to work through.
Arts. 32-45 are in Chapter IV, where they form section 2: CONDITIONS AND DATES OF VALID PUBLICATION OF NAMES.
32.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a taxon (autonyms excepted) must (a) be effectively published (see Art. 29) on or after the starting-point date of the respective group (Art.13.1); (b) have a form which complies with the provisions of Arts. 16-27 and Arts. H.6-7; (c) 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. H.9); and (d) comply with the special provisions of Arts. 33-45.
Of the Articles referred to here, we have just discussed Art.29, and we can ignore the articles starting with H, as they deal with hybrids. Articles 16 - 27 deal with the nomenclature of taxa and have been discussed in previous issues.
Art. 13 takes us back to Chapter II, section 4: LIMITATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY.
13.1. Valid publication of names for plants of the different groups is treated as beginning at the following dates (....)
As the dates for recent algae (1753) and fossil plants (1820) predate the discovery of nannoplankton, they need not worry us.
That leaves us with Arts. 33-45, and the remainder of Art.32, which will be continued in the next issue.
Shirley E. van Heck, SSB, Lutong, Sarawak, Malaysia FROM INA Newsletter 15/1
Our last journey through the labyrinth of the ICBN took us from Art. 6.2 in Chapter II to Art. 32.1 in Chapter IV. At that point we were directed towards Arts. 33-45, which we shall begin to follow here.
33.1. A combination (autonyms excepted) is not validly published unless the author definitely associates the final epithet with the name of the genus or species, or with its abbreviation.
This rule states that it is not sufficient to name a new genus, and then merely list the species thought to belong to it. The species names have to be printed in combination with their new genus. This rule rarely causes problems, although in some of the older publications authors have made the mistake of mentioning only the basionyms, omitting the actual new combinations.
33.2. A new combination, or an avowed substitute (nomen novum), published on or after 1 Jan. 1953, for a previously and validly published name is not validly published unless its basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym) or the replaced synonym (when a new name is proposed) is clearly indicated and a full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid publication with page or plate reference and date. Errors of bibliographic citation and incorrect forms of author citation (see Art. 46) do not invalidate publication of a new combination or nomen novum.
This is the single rule that causes most invalid combinations. Before giving further explanations, some of the terms may need clarification. A basionym is the original combination under which a name was first published. A nomen novum is a new name that is introduced to avoid the creation of a homonym when a species name is transferred to another genus. For example: Stradner (1961) introduced the species Heliorthus tenuis. In 1963 the same author decided to transfer the species to the genus Coccolithus, but the combination Coccolithus tenuis already existed for another species introduced by Kamptner (1937). He therefore had to introduce a new name, Coccolithus helis (the holotype of which is the holotype of H. tenuis), to avoid creating a homonym (see also INA Newsletter vol1/2, p.C-3, comment on B29,A14-5).
A new combination and a nomen novum are treated in the same way, in that the basionym must be mentioned with the original author, year of publication, page numbers of the original description, and figure number of the holotype. This, however, is not enough, as the complete reference must also be given. Note that it is not sufficient to cite the complete publication: the exact page(s) of the original description need to be cited.
Recommendation 33A.1 has bearing on this Article:
33A.1: The full and direct reference to the place of publication of the basionym or replaced synonym should immediately follow a proposed new combination or nomen novum. It should not be provided by mere cross-reference to a bibliography at the end of the publication or to other parts of the same publication, e.g. by use of the abbreviations "loc. cit." or "op. cit.".
If this had been a rule, most of our new combinations would be invalid. It may therefore be a good idea to start applying this recommendation, and it is to be hoped that if it is elevated to the status of rule (as often happens), it will be in effect only from a set date, and not backdated.
As a new combination has no legal status under the zoological code, many authors are not aware of the importance of either the basionym or the full reference. And unfortunately, while many authors do submit the reference correctly in the manuscript, some editors are not aware of the rule, and delete the relevant references from the paper. Numerous examples of invalid combinations are cited in the various issues of the INA Newsletter.
As the last sentence of Art. 33.2 indicates, an incorrect citation does not invalidate the new combination. This is fortunate, as confusion about the correct date of publication for some papers has led to several such incorrect citations.
This leads us to Art. 46, to which Art. 33.2 refers.
46.1. For the indication of the name of a taxon to be accurate and complete, and in order that the date may be readily verified, it is necessary to cite the name of the author(s) who validly published the name concerned unless the provisions for autonyms apply (Arts. 19.3, 22.1, and 26.1; see also Art. 16.1).
This rule only describes correct practice and has no influence on validity as it refers to names already validly published. Unfortunately, it is often ignored as a result. The articles referred to have already been discussed in previous issues of this column.
46.2. When a name of a taxon and its description or diagnosis (or reference to a description or diagnosis) are supplied by one author but published in a work by another author, the word "in" is to be used to connect the names of the two authors. When it is desirable to simplify such a citation, the name of the author who supplied the description or diagnosis is to be retained.
This rule is commonly applied, and does not seem to present any problems. Example: Rhabdolithus superbus Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert 1954.
46.3. When an author who validly publishes a name ascribes it to another person, e.g. to an author who failed to fulfil all requirements for valid publication of the name or to an author who published the name prior to the nomenclatural starting point of the group concerned (see Art. 13.1), the correct author citation is the name of the validating author, but the name of the other person, followed by the connecting word "ex" may be inserted before the name of the validating author (see also Rec. 50A2)......
This rule is applied in cases of validations, and is generally straight forward. Example: Crepidolithus crucifer Prins 1969 ex Rood, Hay & Barnard 1973. N.B. The phrase "Prins 1969 ex" is optional so Crepidolithus crucifer Rood, Hay & Barnard 1973 is correct, but Crepidolithus crucifer Prins 1969 is not.
As no nannofossils were published before the nomenclatural starting point of either the algae or fossil plants, that item does not concern us (Art. 13.1 was discussed previously). Rec. 50A2 merely repeats Art. 46.3 in fewer words, and the omitted sentence deals with garden plants.
Article 46 is followed by several recommendations, most of which need not concern us. Recommendation 46C, however, is of interest:
46C.1. When a name has been published jointly by two authors, the names of both should be cited, linked by means of the word "et" or by an ampersand (&).
46C.2. When a name has been published jointly by more than two authors, the citation should be restricted to that of the first one followed by "et al.".
This leads us back to Art. 33.
Art.33.3. Mere reference to the Index Kewensis, the Index of Fungi, or any work other than that in which the name was validly published does not constitute a full and direct reference to the original publication of a name.
In our case, this implies that it is not sufficient to refer to the INA Newsletters or the nannoplankton Index published by Loeblich & Tappan.
The remaining paragraphs of Art. 33 deal with misplaced terms (such as species subdivided into genera), which has so far not been a problem in the nannoplankton literature.
Shirley E. van Heck, SSB, Lutong, Sarawak, Malaysia FROM INA Newsletter 16/1
An important rule in the ICBN is the following:
34.1. A name is not validly published (a) when it is not accepted by the author in the original publication; (b) when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the future acceptance of the group concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of the group (so-called provisional name); (c) when it is merely cited as a synonym; (d) by the mere mention of the subordinate taxa included in the taxon concerned.
34.2. Art. 34.1(a) does not apply to names published with a question mark or other indication of taxonomic doubt, yet published and accepted by the author....
The omitted part refers to fungi. Some parts of this rule are not terribly clear. Any offence against (a) is difficult to imagine, those against (c), or (d) would imply that no diagnosis or description was given, and therefore the names would in any case be invalid under Art. 32 (previously discussed). Only case (b) is, unfortunately, well known.
Most of you will have come across the several provisional generic names introduced by Kamptner. In his 1948 paper he states that in many cases the systematic position of new fossil forms is not clear, because not only the morphology of the coccoliths, but also the way they are positioned on the cell is important, particularly as dimorphism may occur. He therefore introduces his genera as "purely morphologically defined, provisional collective genera, to which no prejudice to a future special systematical assignment is inherent". As at present it is commonly accepted that most of our fossil genera are, in fact, form-genera, this statement is sensible. However, as Kamptner actually used the word provisional ("provisorisch") there is no doubt that the genera in this publication are invalid. In other cases, however, it may be difficult to determine whether or not to consider a name provisional.
34.3. When, on or after 1 Jan. 1953, two or more different names (so-called alternative names) are proposed simultaneously for the same taxon by the same author, none of them is validly published. This rule does not apply in those cases where the same combination is simultaneously used at different ranks, either for infraspecific taxa within a species or for subdivision of a genus within a species (see Recs. 22A.1-2, 26A.1-3).
This is another rule that is utterly unclear. Very few authors would, in fact, propose alternative names for the same species. However, it sometimes happens that an author changes his mind about a name and replaces it with another name during preparation of a manuscript. If the original name is left unchanged somewhere in the manuscript (even if only in a single place, or on a figure), this is generally interpreted as an alternative name. In most cases it is quite clear that one of the names is a mistake and should be ignored, but it would be difficult to know where to draw the line and apply Art. 34.3. Although it is not stated in so many words, an exception should be made for spelling / typing / printing errors, as these are also excepted elsewhere in the Code.
The meaning of the second sentence of Art.34.4 is difficult to grasp. It apparently refers to a case where for instance an infraspecific epithet is mentioned as a variety on one page and as a subspecies on another page. However, the example provided (Ex.11) suggests that such a case would be considered invalid. An error in the ICBN? It would take a letter to the botanical committee to clarify this point. The recommendations referred to are not very relevant here.
35.1. A new name or combination published on or after 1 Jan. 1953 without a clear indication of the rank of the taxon concerned is not validly published.
This rule means that one should always add 'nov. fam.', 'nov. gen.', or 'nov. spec.' behind a new name. It is debatable whether the omission of 'nov. spec.' or a similar term after a new species would be an offence against this rule, as the rank of the specific epithet would not be in doubt. Similarly, the termination of a suprageneric taxon could arguably be considered an indication of rank. However, the rule very clearly applies to infraspecific epithets, if there is no mention if such epithet is a variety, subspecies, or forma.
35.2. A new name or combination published before 1 Jan. 1953 without a clear indication of rank is validly published provided that all other requirements for valid publication are fulfilled; it is, however, inoperative in questions of priority except for homonymy (see Art.64.4). If it is a new name, it may serve as a basionym or replaced synonym for subsequent combinations or avowed substitutes in definite ranks.
The logic of this rule is unclear. It states that you must considered it in cases of homonymy, but ignore it in cases of priority. However, you can still use it for new combinations. It seems to suggest you may use such a name as long as no other name has been proposed for the same taxon.
35.3. If in a given publication prior to 1 Jan. 1890 only one infraspecific rank is admitted, it is considered to be that of variety unless this would be contrary to the statements of the author himself in the same publication.
It is a pity that the year does not read 1953, which would solve most problems with Art. 35.2.
I will omit discussion of Art. 35.4, as it does not seem important to nannoplankton literature.
36.2. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of non-fossil algae published on or after 1 Jan. 1958 must be accompanied by a Latin description or diagnosis or by reference to a previously and effectively published Latin description or diagnosis.
This, in my view, is one of the least sensible rules in the ICBN. After all, in these days in which English is the universally accepted scientific language, a Latin description is of little help, and an English description should be made obligatory for all groups. It will, however, be very difficult to get this rule changed. The Latin description rule also applies to all other non-fossil plant groups, but with the earlier cut-off date of 1935 (Art. 36.1).
[NB This rule has now been changed. From 1st January 2000? all fossil algal taxa must have a description or diagnosis in Latin or English. Non-fossil algae still need a Latin Diagnosis or description]
Shirley E. van Heck, SSB, Lutong, Sarawak, Malaysia From JNR 16/2
In the past few issues, we have explored the rules dealing with validity. The next article, nr. 37, again sends us on a lengthy side track, which will take several issues to follow.
37.1. PUBLICATION ON OR AFTER 1 JAN. 1958 OF THE NAME OF A NEW TAXON OF THE RANK OF GENUS OR BELOW IS VALID ONLY WHEN THE HOLOTYPE OF THE NAME IS INDICATED (SEE ARTS. 7-10;..)
Although we all know that a holotype is necessary in order to introduce a valid species, not everyone is aware that this rule is effective only from 1958 onwards. Hence, several of the older taxa, e.g., Zygosphaera, Z. hellenica, Z. wettsteinii introduced by Kamptner, 1937 had no type assigned to them when they were first published, but are nevertheless valid. This is not the case with Cribrosphaerella danica Brotzen 1959, for which no holotype was indicated and which was therefore invalid (but has been subsequently validated).
As there are different sets of rules that deal with the types of species, the types of genera, and other ranks, I shall try to reduce confusion and first follow up those references that deal with the types of species.
7.1. THE APPLICATION OF NAMES OF TAXA OF THE RANK OF FAMILY OR BELOW IS DETERMINED BY MEANS OF NOMENCLATURAL TYPES (TYPES OF NAMES OF TAXA). .....
7.2. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether as a correct name or as a synonym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of that taxon.
Some people seem to have a problem with this last addition. Indeed, judged by the morphological variation of a species, the holotype is sometimes considered 'atypical' (as in Calculites ovalis).
7.3. A holotype is the one specimen or illustration used by the author or designated by him as the nomenclatural type. As long as the holotype is extant, it automatically fixes the application of the name concerned.
This rule is rather tricky, as it seems to indicate that an illustration can serve as a holotype. See, however, Art. 9, where this problem will be further discussed.
7.4. If no holotype was indicated by the author of a name, or when the holotype has been lost or destroyed, or when the material designated as type is found to belong to more than one taxon, a lectotype or, if permissible (Art. 7.9) a neotype as a substitute for it may be designated. A lectotype always takes precedent over a neotype, except as provided by Art. 7.10. An isotype, if such exists, must be chosen as the lectotype. If no isotype exists, the lectotype must be chosen from among the syntypes, if such exist. If neither an isotype nor a syntype nor any of the original material is extant, a neotype may be selected.
This is quite a mouth-full, with a lot of different types, which are defined in the next few articles:
7.5. A lectotype is a specimen or illustration selected from the original material to serve as a nomenclatural type when no holotype was indicated at the time of publication or as long as it is missing. When two or more specimens have been designated as types by the author of a specific or infraspecific name (e.g. male and female, flowering and fruiting, etc.), the lectotype must be chosen from among them.
Again a rather tricky article, as it seems to indicate that more than one specimen may serve as the type. One may, after all, just as easily add 'proximal and distal', but again see Art. 9 for further discussion.
7.6. An isotype is any duplicate of the holotype; it is always a specimen.
A duplicate in terms of coccoliths might be thought of as another coccolith that appears to be part of the same coccosphere. If, however, a complete coccosphere is available, it would be more logical to make the entire coccosphere the holotype.
7.7. A syntype is any one of two or more specimens cited by the author when no holotype was designated, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated as types.
In practise the first applies only to cases prior to 1958, when a holotype was not compulsory. For the second case, see Art.9.
7.8. A paratype is a specimen or illustration cited in the protologue that is neither the holotype nor an isotype, nor one of the syntypes if two or more specimens were simultaneously designated as types.
7.9. A neotype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as nomenclatural type as long as all of the material on which the name of a taxon was based is missing (see also Art. 7.10).
7.10. When a holotype or a previously designated lectotype has been lost or destroyed and it can be shown that all the other original material differs taxonomically from the destroyed type, a neotype may be selected to preserve the usage established by the previous typification (see also Art. 8.5).
8.5. A neotype selected under Art. 7.10 may be superseded if it can be shown to differ taxonomically from the holotype or lectotype it replaced.
To summarise then: if an author indicates one specimen as the type, it is the holotype. He may have indicated a duplicate, which is the isotype. If he indicated more than one specimen as type, these are syntypes. Additional specimens indicated by the author, but from a different sample or locality, are paratypes. If a new type needs to be chosen, one takes the isotype, or if that doesn't exist the syntype, or otherwise a paratype. Such a new type is called the lectotype. If none of the original material exists, one chooses a neotype.
7.11. A new name published as an avowed substitute (nomen novum) for an older name is typified by the type of the older name (....)
7.12. A new name formed from a previously published legitimate name (stat. nov., comb. nov.) is, under all circumstances, typified by the type of the basionym (..).
These last two rules state that a type is forever fixed for a particular species, even if it is transferred to another genus or another rank. For example, when Heliorthus tenuis was transferred to the genus Coccolithus, a nomen novum (C. helis) had to be introduced to avoid a homonym. Thus, the holotype of C. helis is the same as that for Heliorthus tenuis and Cruciplacolithus tenuis.
7.13. A name which was nomenclaturally superfluous [i.e. an objective synonym] when published (...) is automatically typified by the type of the name which ought to have been adopted under the rules, unless the author of the superfluous name has definitely indicated a different type. .....
This means that if you include the holotype of another species in the synonymy of your new species, that holotype automatically becomes the type of your new species, which is then a junior synonym of the included species. If you have definitely indicated another type, then it is still a junior synonym, but someone else (or you) may later decide that the other species (and its holotype) should not have been included, in which case the new species is no longer regarded as a junior synonym. An example is difficult to find, but the following case may serve:
When Schwartz (1894) introduced the name Coccolithus oceanicus he stated that he proposed the name "for all the forms hitherto described, recent and fossil". Since Wallich (1877) had already described Coccosphaera pelagica and Coccosphaera carteri, Schwartz introduced a junior synonym, of which the holotype is automatically the one designated for C. pelagica or the one for C. carteri.
7.16. A name validly published by reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis (..) is to be typified by an element selected from the context of the validating description or diagnosis, unless the validating author has definitely designated a different type.
It is difficult to think of a case for nannoplankton that an author would validate an invalid species without indicating a type, as (after 1957, see Art. 37.1 above) that in itself would be invalid. However, if the original species had a holotype, but were invalid for another reason (like belonging to an invalid genus or being a provisional name), the original holotype might still automatically be considered the type for the validation, even if the validating author does not explicitly say so.
7.18. The type of the name of a taxon of fossil plants of the rank of species or below is the specimen whose figure accompanies or is cited in the valid publication of the name (see Art. 38). If figures of more than one specimen were given or cited when the name was validly published, one of those specimens must be chosen as the type.
Again, this can only apply to species published before 1958, or a type would have to be indicated for the species to be validly published. Note that it is stated that the type is the specimen that is illustrated, not the figure itself. But it is more complicated:
38.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of fossil plants of specific or lower rank published on or after 1 Jan. 1912 must be accompanied by an illustration or figure showing the essential characters, in addition to the description or diagnosis, or by a reference to a previously and effectively published illustration or figure.
In summary: before 1912 no type and no figure was required, only a description (Art. 32). After 1911 (for recent species 1957, see below) but before 1958 a figure was required, but still no holotype. Only after 1957 was a holotype required, as well as a picture and description.
We might as well follow up with the next article, which makes a similar statement for recent algae:
39.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon of non-fossil algae of specific or lower rank published on or after 1 Jan. 1958 must be accompanied by an illustration or figure showing the distinctive morphological features, in addition to the Latin description or diagnosis, or by a reference to a previously and effectively published illustration or figure.
The differences with the previous article are highlighted. The same comments are valid as made for the fossil taxa. Note that it is nowhere required to publish an illustration of the holotype, or even of an actual specimen. A schematic drawing showing the main characteristics is sufficient, and of course before 1958 no holotype is required. This has occurred quite frequently in the nannoplankton literature, if we think of early illustrations of for instance Wallich, Lohmann and Murray & Blackman, and it may be difficult to establish if a physical type exists.
We will skip Art.8, which deals with lectotypes and neotypes, and move on to
9.1. The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype) of the name of a species or infraspecific taxon is a single specimen or illustration except in the following case: for small herbaceous plants and for most non-vascular plants, the type may consist of more than one individual, which ought to be conserved permanently on one herbarium sheet or in one equivalent preparation (e.g., .., microscope slide).
A good example for this case is provided by, No‘l (1969), who described various Aspidolithus species with separate holotypes for the proximal and distal views. These would thus form syntypes, and publication is valid under the rules if the specimens are in the same preparation.
9.2. If it is later proved that such a type herbarium sheet or preparation contains parts belonging to more than one taxon (Art.7.4), the name must remain attached to that part (lectotype) which corresponds most nearly with the original description.
9.3. If it is impossible to preserve a specimen as the type of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon of non-fossil plants, or if such a name is without a type specimen, the type may be an illustration.
This basically means that many of our fossil species are without types, as either the specimens are destroyed when TEM micrographs are made, or preparations for SEM or light microscopes have deteriorated. The writers of the code apparently felt that if something is fossilised, it is indestructible. This is one rule that is often ignored amongst nannoplankton workers, where the illustration of the type is normally treated as the type. Perhaps we ought to try to get this rule changed, if we are to stay within the law! After all, I doubt whether many of our preparations will last indefinitely.
37.3. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon, citation of a single element is acceptable as indication of the holotype (but see Art. 37.4). Mere citation of a locality without concrete reference to a specimen does not however constitute indication of a holotype. Citation of the collector's name and/or collecting number and/or date of collection and/or reference to any other detail of the type specimen or illustration is required.
37.4. For the name of a new taxon published on or after 1 Jan. 1990, indication of the holotype must include one of the words "typus" or "holotypus", or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language.
37.5. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 Jan. 1990 whose type is a specimen or unpublished illustration, the herbarium or institution in which the type is conserved must be specified.
In combination with Art. 37.3. this implies that it is not necessary to illustrate the holotype, as long as you indicate where it is. From this, and Art. 9 it can be concluded that the holotype is best kept in a fixed preparation microscope slide that has the best chance to last longest, and publish light micrographs of that, and use other specimens for electron microscope pictures, unless you can preserve the specimen (and still view it) after scanning.
This has been a rather long contribution, necessary to keep all the articles dealing with typification for species together. The next issue will look at typification of genera and higher ranks.
Shirley E. van Heck, SSB, Lutong, Sarawak, Malaysia FROM JNR 16/3
We continue the rules of typification with the types for genera, starting again from Art. 37. Most of the rules and definitions for types are the same as for species, but there are a few special considerations.
37.1. PUBLICATION ON OR AFTER 1 JAN. 1958 OF THE NAME OF A NEW TAXON OF THE RANK OF GENUS OR BELOW IS VALID ONLY WHEN THE HOLOTYPE OF THE NAME IS INDICATED (SEE ARTS. 7-10;..)
The type of a genus is therefore a specimen, not a species, which is further emphasised in the following rule:
37.2. For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, inclusion of reference (direct or indirect) to a single type of a name of a species is acceptable as indication of the holotype (..).
This means that you can refer to a holotype of a species and assign that as the type of the genus. However, it also implies that the species does not necessarily have to be valid or legitimate, as the specimen is all that matters.
7.14. The type of a name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomenclatural starting-point later than 1753 (see Art. 13) is to be determined in accordance with the indication or description and other matter accompanying its valid publication (...).
This rule appears not to apply to recent algae, as they have a starting point in 1753, but it does apply to fossil plants, which has a starting point in 1821. For the latter group, it can only apply to a taxon published before 1958, because it would be invalid if no holotype had been indicated after that date. See, however, Art. 10.2.
10.1. The type of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus is the type of a name of a species (..). For purposes of designation or citation of a type, the species name alone suffices, i.e. it is considered as the full equivalent of its type.
This of course, is only true if the species has a type, which is not necessarily the case before 1958.
10.2. If in the protologue of the name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus reference is made to the name(s) of one or more definitely included species, the type must be chosen from among the types of these names. If such a reference is lacking, a type must be otherwise chosen, but the choice is to be superseded if it can be demonstrated that the selected type is not conspecific with any of the material associated with the protologue.
This repeats in a bit more detail what was stated in Art. 7.14, except that the rule says that the choice can be rejected if the selected type species is not in accordance with the protologue (= all the text, figures and material used by the author). Note that in this case the recent algae are not excluded.
On to family types:
7.1. The application of names of taxa of the rank of family or below is determined by means of nomenclatural types (types of names of taxa). The application of names of taxa in the higher ranks is also determined by types when the names are ultimately based on generic names (see Art. 10.5).
10.4. The type of a name of a family or of any subdivision of a family is the same as that of the generic name on which it is based (see Art. 18.1). For purposes of designation or citation of a type, the generic name alone suffices. .....
This implies first of all that typification is automatic, and it is not necessary to spell out that, for instance, the genus Prinsius is the type for the Prinsiaceae. Consequently, the name Prinsiaceae Hay & Mohler 1967 is valid, and so has priority over the name Noelaerhabdaceae Jerkovic 1970. Further implications are as mentioned above for the genus type: this rule only works if the genus actually has a type, and the genus name does not have to be valid. However, Art. 18.3 (discussed in INA Newsletter 13.3) gives an odd twist to this conclusion, because it states that a family name based on an illegitimate genus name is illegitimate.
I shall ignore the rules that deal with taxa above the rank of family, which few of us use, and do not appear to cause problems. As this concludes the rules dealing with typification, we can now pick up where we left off, and move to Art. 41 in the next issue.
Shirley E. van Heck, SSB, Lutong, Sarawak, Malaysia
A new version of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature has now been published (Greuter et al. 1994). I prepared this issue using the old code but it has been amended where necessary to follow the new code, in particular some article renumbering has occurred [the old numbers are given in square brackets]. I hope to give a review of the new code in the next issue.
After exploring the rules that deal with typification, we return to rules dealing with validity, and pick up the story with Article 41. This article, together with Article 32 (discussed in issue 7, INA Newsletter 14/3), contains the most basic, and therefore the most important, validity rules.
41.1. In order to be validly published, a name of a family must be accompanied (a) by a description or diagnosis of the taxon, or (b) by a reference (direct or indirect) to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis of a family or subdivision of a family.
No surprises here, as this is pretty standard.
41.2. In order to be validly published, a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus must be accompanied (a) by a description or diagnosis of the taxon (but see Art. 42), or (b) by a reference (direct or indirect) to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis of a genus or subdivision of a genus.
Article 42 deals with monotypic genera, a special case that means that the genus consists of only one species:
42.1. The names of a genus and a species may be simultaneously validated by provision of a single description (descriptio generico-specifica) or diagnosis, even though this may have been intended as only generic or specific, if all of the following conditions obtain: (a) the genus is at that time monotypic; (b) no other names (at any rank) have previously been validly published based on the same type; and (c) the names of the genus and species otherwise fulfil the requirements for valid publication. Reference to an earlier description or diagnosis is not accepted as provision of such a description or diagnosis.
42.2 [formerly Art 42 Note 1] For the purposes of Art 42, a monotypic genus is one for which a single binomial is validly published, even though the author may indicate that other species are attributable to the genus.
Examples are: Ceratolithus, of which only one species (C. cristatus) was published originally. C. cristatus is therefore automatically the type species. Another example is Coccolithus, of which the only included species was C. oceanicus.
We return to Article 41, with the rules for species:
41.3. In order to be validly published, a name of a species must be accompanied (a) by a description or diagnosis of the species (but see Arts. 42 and 44), or (b) by a reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis of a species or infraspecific taxon, or (c), under certain circumstances, by reference to a genus whose name was previously and validly published simultaneously with its description and diagnosis. A reference as mentioned under (c) is acceptable if neither the author of the name of the genus nor the author of the name of the species indicate that more than one species belongs to the genus in question.
The reference to article 42 again applies to monotypic genera, and we can ignore Art.44. Note that species names that are introduced without description (and hence invalid according to this rule) are generally referred to as nomen nudum. These nomina nuda occur fairly frequently, for instance when an author is aware of a name in print, and cites it in the expectation that the publication with the new name will be published before the paper in which he cites it. They should be rigorously avoided. The statement under (c) is interesting, as it indicates that (before 1958, when no type was required) a genus name is perfectly valid and legitimate if no species have been included, provided the other requirements of the ICBN are fulfilled.
The next is a famous article, that has caused much confusion:
43.1. A name of a taxon below the rank of genus is not validly published unless the name of the genus or species to which it is assigned is validly published at the same time or was validly published previously.
Kamptner has provided us with numerous examples of this. For instance the genus Coccolithites Kamptner, 1955 is invalid because it was introduced as a provisional name (contra Art. 34, see issue 9, INA Newsl.16/1), and all the species (well over 50) included in the genus are likewise invalid, because of Art. 43. However, note that this Article only deals with INVALID genera, not ILLEGITIMATE genera, for which other rules apply:
55.1. [formerly Art 68.1] A name of a species or subdivision of a genus, autonyms excepted (Art. 22.1), may be legitimate even if its epithet was originally placed under an illegitimate generic name.
Example: In 1877 Wallich introduced the genus Coccosphaera, with two named species: C. pelagica and C. carteri. The name Coccosphaera is a homonym, and hence illegitimate, but the species names remain available to be used in other combinations. See also van Heck (1990) for a complex case history - Pseudoemiliania lacunosa which had been considered illegitimate. Similarly for varieties and other sub-specific ranks..
55.2 An infraspecific name, autonyms excepted (Art. 26.1), may be legitimate even if its final epithet was originally placed under an illegitimate specific name.
The last article of this section is Article 45:
45.1 The date of a name is that of its valid publication. When the various conditions for valid publication are not simultaneously fulfilled, the date is that on which the last is fulfilled. However, the name must always be explicitly accepted in the place of its validation. A name published on or after 1 Jan. 1973 for which the various conditions for valid publication are not simultaneously fulfilled is not validly published unless a full and direct reference (Art.33.2) is given to the places where these requirements were previously fulfilled.
The application of this article is basically for validations, for which several examples can be found in earlier issues of the INA Newsletter. A discussion of Art. 33.2 and in particular 33A.1, which explains how a full and direct reference is defined, is given in issue 8 (INA Newsl. 15/1).
45.3. A correction of the original spelling of a name (see Art.60) does not affect its date of valid publication.
Art. 60 [formerly 73] explains what the correct spelling is, and has been discussed in detail in issue 2 (INA Newsl. 12/2). This rule applies in particular to terminations, which should always be corrected (see Art. 32.6, briefly referred to in issue 3, INA Newsl.12/3, and to be discussed more extensively in the next issue). Thus, one should refer to Reticulofenestra umbilicus and Micula murus, without changing the name of the original author or date of publication.
45.4. For purposes of priority only legitimate names are taken into consideration (see Arts. 11, 52-54). However, validly published earlier homonyms, whether legitimate or not, shall cause rejection of their later homonyms, unless the latter are conserved or sanctioned (but see Art. 15 note 2).
Note again the distinction between valid and legitimate. The last 5 issues have dealt mainly with validity and some of the coming issues will deal with legitimacy. Hence, the references to these articles will not be followed up now, but left for the near future.
The last point of Article 45 causes much confusion:
45.5: If a taxon originally assigned to a group not covered by this Code is treated as belonging to a group of plants other than algae ...... If the taxon is treated as belonging to the algae, any of its names need satisfy only the requirements of the pertinent non-botanical code for status equivalent to valid publication under the botanical Code (but see Art.54, regarding homonymy).
The reference to Article 54 [formerly 65] will be followed up in a later issue. Right now I would like to draw your attention to some controversial issues related to this article. Two problems arise with early publications: 1) it is not always clear whether the original author treated the nannofossils as plants (algae) or animals. In fact, when I wrote to one author asking him about this to solve a nomenclatural problem, he answered that at the time of publication he considered them as belonging to a third kingdom, Protista. To my knowledge, there are no guidelines for cases like this, and I recommend that in case of doubt the ICBN is applied. 2) Note that this article only states that taxa should be considered valid / legitimate if they comply with the pertinent non-botanical code (in our case the ICZN). There is no rule that states that the reverse should also apply. In other words, if a name, published under the zoological code, is either invalid or illegitimate according to that code, but would be valid / legitimate under the botanical code, what is its status? Loeblich and Tappan (1966 - 1973) considered such names invalid / illegitimate, and they have been generally followed, but I am not convinced this is correct. In this matter I intend to seek the advice of the Botanical Committee, and work out some of the consequences for our nomenclature.
Greuter, W., 1988: International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. (Berlin Code). Koeltz Scientific Books, 328 pp.
Greuter, W. et al., 1994: International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. (Tokyo Code). Koeltz Scientific Books, 389 pp.
Heck, S.E. van, 1990: On the validity of Pseudoemiliania lacunosa Kamptner 1963 ex Gartner 1967. INA Newsletter 12/2, pp.11,12.
Heck, S.E. van, 1990: The ICBN: things you need to know -2. INA Newsletter 12/2, pp.8-10.
Heck, S.E. van, 1990: The ICBN: things you need to know -3. INA Newsletter 12/3, pp.59- 61.
Heck, S.E. van, 1992: The ICBN: things you need to know -7. INA Newsletter 14/3, pp.100- 101.
Heck, S.E. van, 1993: The ICBN: things you need to know -8. INA Newsletter 15/1, pp.8-9.
Heck, S.E. van, 1994: The ICBN: things you need to know -9. INA Newsletter 16/1, pp.6-7.
Loeblich, A.R. & Tappan,H., 1966 - 1973: Annotated index and bibliography of the calcareous nannoplankton I - VII. Phycologia vol.5(2/3), 9(2),10(4), and J. Paleont. vol.42(2), 43(2), 44(3), 47(4).
Noël D., 1969: Arkhangelskiella (coccolithes crétacés) et formes affines du Basin de Paris. Rev. Micropaléont., 11, 191-204.
Also the current (Vienna 2006) International Code of Botanical Nomenclature