Proposals by Czechoslovak Botanists Author(s): J. Dostál, J. Holub, J. Komárek, Z. Pouzar and J. Ru̇žička Source: Taxon, Vol. 7, No. 9 (Nov. - Dec., 1958), pp. 274-282 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1217640 . Accessed: 15/03/2014 07:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:55:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ever, the basic principles, which are in our established by the Congress, will have to be opinion the logical consequence of the use followed. of an artificial classification-system. If the above principles are accepted, the Congress will have to decide on the fate of 212. The present proposal may be sum- and described marized as follows: genera species already validly in accordance with systems based on other 1. Both pure natural and pure artificial principles. A solution which may prove satis- systematic nomenclature may be used in factory is that they should continue to be palynology. A species of which the natural valid, but that they should also be placed position is known (fossil, subfossil or recent), in a genus according to the new principles, las also its place in the artificial system. Age retaining their specific name. cannot be a classification-criterion. The artificial system published in 1956 is 2. The nature of an artificial classification- put forward as a possible solution in agree- system (the lack of the criterion of natural ment with the above-mentioned proposals. relationship), implies the need to establish Names and relative rank may be changed, definite classification-criteria. The type- if necessary or convenient. Names for dis- method alone is insufficient. cussion are, for instance: Monocolpites or 3. Morphological differences whicll re- Monosulcites, etc., relative ranks, for instance: present classification-criteriaare, in the order Genus Psilatricolpites of their importance: TricolpitesSubgenus ,, Foveotricolpites Ist order: "Pollen-types" (principally num- ,, Fossutricolpites ber, shape and position of apertures, number ,, Scabratricolpites of grains united, presence of air-sacs). ,, Echitricolpites 2nd order: "Sculpture type". (3rd order: Exine structure). ,, Verrutricolpites ,, Gemmatricolpites (4th order: Shape). ,, Bacutricolpites In pollengrains showing various types of ,, Clavatricolpites sculpture-elements, the dominant positive elements will decide. ,, Retitricolpites ,, Regutricolpites In special cases, exceptions may be made on this rule. ,, Striatricolpites 4. Genera and subgenera will be based on or: Tricolpates genus Psilatricolpites types, but in the formation of the generic , Foveotricolpites etc. names, and in the establishment of ,, Fossutricolpites generic, etc., characteristics, general lines, ,, Scabratricolpites etc. XX. PROPOSALS BY CZECHOSLOVAK BOTANISTS J. Dostal, J. Holub, J. Komarek, Z. Pouzar & J. Ruzic6ka* Supplementation and correction a taxon used for the typification of the of the Code nearest higher taxon, the term "nomen- clatural type" to designate a plant or its part 213. Article 7. We suggest that in the (preparation) by means of which we typify Code the terms "standard" and "nomen- a species or a taxon of lower rank. clatural type" should be distinguished as Motivation: In the interest of clear- follows: the term "standard"should be used ness it is necessary to differentiate between for the typification of taxa of the rank of the term used for a a order or but than the type represented by below, higher species, taxon and a by an actual term "nomenclatural to be used for type represented type" part of a plant. taxa of the rank of species or below. The Pro o se d of Code: Article 7, term "standard" is understood to designate p change paragraph 1 should be altered to read as follows: "The application of names of taxa of thle *) Committee for Botanical Nomenclature rank of order or below but above that of of the Czechosiovak Botanical Society, Praha species is determined by means of standards 2, BenAtska2. (typifying taxa), the application of names for 274

This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:55:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions taxa of the rank of species or below by "The names of phyla and divisions are means of nomenclatulral types (plants and preferably taken from characters indicating their parts). Thus a standard or nomenclatural their nature as closely as possible; the names type is that constituent element of a taxon of phyla should end in -phytae, the names to which the name of the taxon is permanently of divisions should end in -phyta, except in attached, whether as an accepted name or as the case of Fungi, in which case they should a synonym. end in -mycota. Words of Greek origin should be preferred." 214. Article 17. We propose that note 1 of Article 18 should be similarly accepted 217. Article 18. The Czechoslovak botanists also for an order and added to Article 17. are of the opinion that the exceptions per- mitted in note 2 of Article 18 are unsuitable M o t i v a t i o n: An order, in the just and same as a as inadmissible, and they suggest that way family, depends regards note 2 should be its name on the standard (nomenclatural deleted altogether. and both to be formed accord- type), ought 218. Article 24. The Czechoslovakbotanists to the same rules. There is no reason ing are of the opinion that the designation of why different rules should apply to each. any taxa by means of numbers or letters (or E x a m p I e: Ralfs 1848 (starting-point) is by whatever other symbols than words) is in considered to be the author of the family direct contradiction to the Principles IV and Desmidiaceae, although he published the V and therefore inadmissible. They suggest name of this family with a termination dif- that the words "which receive either epithets ferent from the one prescribed now, i.e. or numbers or letters to facilitate their ar- "Desmidieae". On the other hand, the author rangement" should be deleted in Article 24, of the order would not be cited as Naegeli paragraph 2. 1849, who first published after the starting- point "Desmidiaceae, ordo Algarum", but 219. Article 32. The word "combination" that author who used not only the stem, but used in paragraph 2 of Article 32 is not also the prescribed ending, i.e. "Desmidiales" sufficiently lucid. We suggest that for it (it is probably Pascher). should be substituted the words "combination of name and new com- P r o p o s e d: supplementation of Code: epithet (including Add the following sentence to Article 17: binations or new transfers) ...... ". "Note. When the name of an order or suborder has been with an im- 220. For a better elucidation of all cases published under the same we recom- proper termination, the ending must be falling heading mended the addition to 2 of Article changed to accord with the rule, without paragraph 32 of a further sentence (with change of the author's name." retrospective validity): 215-216. Article 16. The Czechoslovak "New transfers and combinations are not if botanists recommend that the proposal of considered validly published published German and Cuban botanists for the intro- only in synonymy." duction of the should category "phylum" This could be again be considered, and that this category 221. Article 37. ruling should be introduced into the Code; it should equally suitably included in Article 37 by the first sentence of the article to have the ending "-phytae", and, in the changing read as follows: hierarchy of taxa, it should have a higher rank than "divisio". "The names of taxa (whether that of a new a new combination, or a new Motivation: We consider the taxon taxon, are not if are essential from the taxonomical transfer) validly published they "phylum" cited as point of view. synonyms." P r o p o s e d supplementation of Code: 222. Article 33. The wording of the last 215. In Article 4, paragraph 1, between paragraph of Article 33 and of paragraph 2 the words "Regnumvegetabile" and "Divisio" of Article 32 seems to be contradictory. Many insert the word "Phylum". alternative names referred to in the last paragraph of Article 33 are also cases where 216. The Recommendation 16A, paragraph the author did not definitely state in which should (a) read as follows: way precisely the epithet is combined to form 275

This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:55:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions the combination. So the paradoxical situation sidered valid. We propose that the following may arise that an alternative name published sentence should be added to Article 33: before Jan. 1st 1953 would be valid according "The name of a genus is validly published to the last paragraph of Article 33, but not even if the species belonging to that genus according to paragraph 2 of Article 32. This are not cited simultaneously." is also the case with the mentioned example E x a m p I e s: The genus Lorinsera Opiz in the last of Article 33. paragraph (in Berchtold et Opiz Oekonom.-techn. Fl. Bro.imum The species of the genus pub- Bihmens 2/2: 28, 1839) was validly published lished with alternative names simultaneously in a generic key without mention of any under Piratinera and mentioned in the name species. the Code as published validly, are invalid according to Article 32, paragraph 2. 225. Article 39. A reference to an earlier NVe recommend that both rulings should diagnosis, as stated in Article 39, paragraph 1 be elucidated and made to conform. (3) may, according to this article, be either direct or indirect. We recommend that, for 223. Article 32. In the Code it has not clearness' sake, this should be explicitly been made sufficiently clear what is meant stated, and in the sentence (3), following the by the term "indirect reference", used in words "(3) by reference" the words "(direct Article 32, paragraph 1. We recommend that or indirect)" should be inserted. in Article 32 the following additional note should be included: Taxa designated by symbols only "Note 4. An indirect reference is a clear Article 60. In the second half of last indication, by the citation of the author's century many botanists designated the cate- name or in some other way, that the new gories of taxa within the species not by name is based upon a previously and effec- means of terms in word form (e.g. varietas, tively published diagnosis." forma), but by means of symbols (letters, numbers, asterisks, etc.). It is E x a m pl e s of indirect indication: Hy- indisputable Fr. ex Fr. 1821 is in that, according to Article 4 of the Code, such pochnus published are not 1: (14), 450. 1821 with- designations permissible; they may Systema mycologicum not even be considered as out any diagnosis. The abbreviation "Fr." "supplementary after the name indicates a connection with intercalated categories" in the sense of para- 2 of the cited as it a (before the starting- graph Article, might previously published cause "confusion or error". It is therefore point) diagnosis of Hypochnus Fr. 1818, Observations 2: 278. 1818 and therefore necessary to designate such taxa afresh by means of the terms. the name Hypochnus Fr. ex Fr. was validly permissible The author himself very ex- published in 1821. - Kratzmannia Opiz frequently (in Berchtold et Oekon.-techn. Fl. plained the use of such inadmissible designa- Opiz he denoted this Bohmens 1/2: 398. 1836) is with tions, and which category by published or that In such a case the inad- a diagnosis, but not definitely accepted by symbol. the author and therefore invalid. It is missible symbol may be replaced by the word-term. This, however, is in Opiz Seznam rostlin respective only accepted definitely admissible in the case of a work in which kveteny ceskl p. 56, 1852, but without The citation of author's name the necessary explanation is given, or in the any diagnosis. of those other to which after Kratzmannia imbricata (L.) Opiz is an keys publications tle author refers; this not even indirect indication of the previously published explicitly may in 1836. - the be extended to another work of the same diagnosis Opiz published that the same name of the (Benth.) author, as we cannot be certain genus Hemisphace Opiz author did not in different works use dif- in Seznam Kv6teny Cesk& 50, 1852 with- p. ferent for the same categories. out a diagnosis, but as lie wrote Hemisphace symbols Benth. he indirectly indicated a previously E x a m p e s: Celakovsky explained the validly published diagnosis by Bentham, use of symbols in the introduction to his Labiat. Gen. et Spec. 1: 193. 1833. Prodromus and in other publications. Nord- sted 1872 p. 32 introduced a new taxon with 224. Article 33. Up to the present time the words: "CosnmariumpulcherrinmumrI it has not been explicitly stated in the Code boreale n. var.", so here we obviously have that genera published without their species to do with a variety. De Bary 185S p. 72 are valid; in practice, however, they are con- speaks of a new taxon Tetmremorusbrebissonii 276

This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:55:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions minorn in the text: ".... ist daher als this Article and published on and after ..... kleine Varietit .... zu bezeichnen", so in are invalid. If they were published before his work of the year 1858 he used Greek this date, it is necessary to designate them letters for varieties. The same holds for Ralfs subsequently by means of one of the terms 1848, as can be seen from the fact, that in admissible under this Article, which will be the text he speaks at various points of "the considered a change of rank of the taxon var." etc. (Art. 60). If, however, the original author In cases where the author did not himself himself has explained in his publication, explain the meaning of such symbols, a re- which admissible term he had in mind when designation must be carried out, if we want using an inadmissible symbol or term for the to use them. The present Code does not make category of the taxon, the use of this ad- it absolutely clear which rules should be missible term is not considered a change of applied in such cases. The Czechoslovak rank of the taxon." botanists therefore suggest that a definite An advantage of this solution is the possible ruling should be inserted in the Code with simple adjustment of the Code. regard to the proper procedure to be used Disadvantages: The date of the validity in such cases, and they offer the choice of of the new combination is made later than two alternative solutions. the original publication, very frequently by It would also be possible to solve in a a number of years. In the interim, however, similar way those cases where the author had names pertaining to the same taxon have designated the infraspecific rank by means of often been published, and these would now a term such as to cause "confusion and have priority. This would result in changes of error" (Art. 4, para. 2). This holds also for epithets that had been in use for a long time, cases where the author forms a new term and would lead to unnecessary nomenclatural for a supplementary category according to confusion. The search for whether the original the cited paragraph, but does not state pre- author had somewhere explained the symbols cisely to what place in the hierarchy of ranks used in his work, or whether somebody, and it belongs. if so who, had published the new combina- Solution I. Where the rank of a taxon tion, is sometimes very difficult and im- is designated by means of a letter, a number, possible for most practical botanists; when or a symbol, it may be considered a rank this solution is used there would thus remain an within the species sui generis, and transferred uncertaintyas to whether the newly formed combination is valid. to another legitimate rank according to Ar- ticle 60 of the Code, i.e. as a "new com- Solution II. Taxa whose rank is bination". According to the general rules the designated by means of letters, numbers, original author is cited in brackets in these asterisks, and similar illegitimate symbols may cases, then follows the author who carried be considered as special categories within the out tile change of rank; the priority of the species without any precisely assigned rank, in epithet the new rank is governed by the and may be transferred to new, legitimate date of the valid publication of the new ranks by citing in each case behind the combination. epithet the author of the original taxon; would be E x a mple: Klebs 1879 p. 6 published priority governed by the date of the a new taxon within the species Closteriunl original publication. As can be seen such taxa in lunula, designated only "b. coloratunt".If we would, this way, gain certain ad- consider it a form, then it should be cited vantages, and it would be advisable to prevent as "f. coloratum (Klebs) Fischer 1883". If we the abuse of this advantage in future. consider it a variety it is cited as "var. colo- E x a m ple: "Closterium lunula b. colo- ratum (Klebs) De Toni 1889". It has not yet raturn Klebs 1879" would be cited either "f. been published as a subspecies, and an even- coloratum Klebs 1879" or (according to the tual "ssp. coloratum (Klebs) comb. nova" citing author's wish) "var. coloratum Klebs would have priority only from the date of 1879", thus always with priority as from the a future valid publication. original publication in 1879. Suggestion for the supplementation of the 226. P r o p o s a for the supplementa- Code: tion of the text of Code: Include in Article 4: "Taxa whose rank has not been precisely 227. Insert into Article 60 or as a special designated by means of a term according to article of Code:

277

This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:55:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "Taxa whose ranks have not been precisely the taxa contained in the "starting-point" designated by means of terms according to publication in the sense of the concept of this article and published on and after ...... the author of the "starting-point"publication. are invalid. If they were published before Only in the case where a certain taxon can- this date, it is necessary to designate them not be definitely determined in this pub- subsequently by means of one of the terms lication, may it be precisely typified by admissible according to this Article. means of the material of the original author If the original author of such an inad- (for the elucidation of the concept in the missible designation himself explained in a "starting-point" publication). valid publication which term is denoted by M o t i v a t i o n: Nomenclature must be this or that the taxon is symbol, designated based upon the results of systematic work by means of this term. In the other cases and it is therefore to as of rank within impossible separate they may be designated any one from the other. If Donk (I.c. 254) uses the in each case the species. However, only the citation "Hydnum cyathiforme Schaef. ex name of the author of the original epithet Fries", then according to him Fries only of the taxon is cited, and its priority is validated the name and did not fix its taxo- the date of the valid governed by original nomic content. As the concepts of Schaef. publication." and Fries are not identical (different genera Advantages of solution II: There is no of today!), it is necessary to designate Fries's need to search through the literature to find concept by the name since he is the chief whether a taxon whose rank had originally author (Rec. 46A). been designated by means of a symbol had been referred to a rank denoted by an ad- 228. We propose that Article 13 of the missible term later on. The original epithet Code be supplemented as follows: and also the original date of publication "Note 5. In the case of taxa whose names were remain valid regardless of later synonyms, published before the date of the which fact (at least in some branches of "starting-point" and that were used in the botany) does away with unnecessary changes "starting-point" publication or later, it is of epithets and nomenclatural confusion, and necessary to choose lectotypes from the mate- is consistent with the spirit of the rules of rial that was at the disposal of the author who the the Code with regard to priority. gave name valid publication in the "starting-point"work or later (in the case of Disadvantages: There is need for more taxa of higher rank than species according extensive changes in the Code: A certain to Article 9). Only if there is no material group of epithets is preferred in comparison available that was at the disposal of the with other groups. author giving the name valid publication, and there is no contradiction between his concept On the character the binding of and that of the original author, may the ,,Starting point" material of the original author be chosen as with regard to its contents lectotype. Article 13. Cryptogamists interpret this E x a m p 1 e: The species Clavaria abietina Article in various ways, especially as regards Persoon 1794 was revalidated by Fries 1821. the typification of taxa published before the Fries, however, described under this name a "starting-point" and cited in the initial pub- species different from the one described by lication. Donk (Taxon 6: 245) is of the Persoon. It is necessary to use this name in opinion that taxa from the time after the the sense in which it was used by Fries and publication of Linnaeus' "Species plantarum" to cite it as Clavaria abietina Fries." up to the publication of the "starting-point" work, if they are contained in this publication, Illegitimately ascribed authorship should be typified by means of the original Recommendation 23B. In those cases where material. If there is any contradiction be- an author ascribed in his work a new taxon tween the original concept of the author of (a new combination, a new name) to another a taxon and the concept of the author of the author, this was done either with or without "starting-point" publication, it is necessary the consent of the other author (either by to give preference to the original concept. mistake or intentionally). We suggest that it The Czechoslovak botanists are of the should be explicitly ruled in what way these opinion that it is always necessary to typify cases should be cited: 278

This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:55:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions a) Obvious mistakes must be automatically Closteriumtdidymotocun var. glabrunmKrie- corrected. ger], or cited in the way mentioned sub (b), i.e. E x a m l e: Nordstedt described in the by means of "in" [Euastrum binale var. p Schmidle in work "Wittrock et Nordstedt, Alg. exsicc." gutwinskii (Schmidle) Krieger, under "No. 844" the new taxon Closteriumt Closterium didymotocum var. glabrun Borge dianae f. rectius. In 1889 De Toni ascribed in Krieger]. We suggest that either the first or the second of this taxon to Lagerheim "in Wittr. et Norlst., way citation should be Alg. exsicc. No. 844". From the whole cita- prescribed. tion it is obvious that there is a clear mistake 229. If the f i r s t alternative of the case with to the author's name, and the regard sub (c) is decided we name "Lagerh." must be replaced by upon, suggest inserting "Nordst.". behind the first sentence of Recommendation 46B: b) If the author of a publication states "This holds also in those cases where one outright that he is a new taxon publishing author proposed a name and another pub- name) with the consent of (combination, lished this name in his work with the original another author, it is cited to Rec. according author's approval. Without this approval, 46B name of the author of the (the pub- however, only the author of the publication lication preceded by "in" is added). is cited. Obvious mistakes, however, must be E x a m p e: Krieger (1935) published in corrected." his monograph as new Closterium ehrenbergii var. atumidumr Gronbl., at the same time 230. Should the s e c o n d alternative be thanking Gr6nblad in the text for his consent approved: to the publication of the new variety. Cita- "This holds also in those cases where one tion: Closterium ehrenbergii var. atumidum author published in his work a name that GrOnbl.in Krieger 1935. had been proposed by another author, or which he either or c) In cases when an author publishes a ascribed, intentionally by to new taxon (combination, name) and quotes mistake, another author. The author of the another author and not his own name, it is publication is always cited second. Only not certain whether he intended to ascribe evident mistakes by the author of the pub- the new taxon to the other author intention- lication are corrected." ally, whether he had received the other We further suggest that as from 1 Jan. author's consent, whether he had only found 1981 all ascriptions to other authors in cases somebody else's opinion in his papers, cor- where it is not stated that they had been respondence etc., or if the whole thing is made with their explicit approval will be a mistake. considered invalid (see also Rec. 23B, lit. i). E x a m I e s: (1937) cited in his p Krieger 231. We suggest that paragraph (i) of monograph Euastrum binale var. gutwinskii Recommendation 23B should be changed as Schmidle, although Schmidle had published follows: "f. gutwinskii" in 1894. - Also "Closterium "(i) not to use names found in didymotocum var. glabrum any unpub- Borge" published lished as handwritten cor- by Krieger (1935) had actually been sources, e.g. notes, pub- or on herbarium labels and to lished originally as "Closterium didymotoclum respondence, attribute them to their authors;" forma" (Anderson 1890). From the typo- graphical arrangement of Anderson's work it Some of the Czechoslovak botanists, how- is obvious, that the word "glabra" is only ever, disagree with the inclusion of her- a component part of the description of an barium labels in the preceding formulation, unnamed form and not a new epithet (Ander- insofar as a description is added. We there- son later changed his name to "Borge"). In fore leave it to the nomenclatural commission both cases it is not clear how Krieger arrived of the Congress to reach a final decision on at these names for the taxa. this point. The authors of these suggestions differ in The words their opinions as to whether these contro- connecting versial cases (sub c) should be corrected and between the names of authors ascribed to the author of the publication as Articles 46-50. According to the Code (Arts. obvious mistakes [see sub (a), i.e. Euastrumi 46-50) it is necessary to cite with the Latin binale var. gutwinskii (Schmidle) Krieger, names of taxa the name of the author who 279

This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:55:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions published and validly described the respec- second) must be retained, as it is more im- tive taxon. The Code does not contain clear portant." rules with to the use of regard connecting To be added to words or of their abbreviations (et, in, ex, examples: emendavit etc.) between the names of two "Anabaena Borv ex Bornet et Flahauit or more authors connected with the same (starting-point),abbreviated: Anabaena Bornet et Flahault. - Bankera single taxon. We are of the opinion that a fuligineo-alba (Schmidt ex Coker et Biers ex precise definition, unification and simplifica- Fries) Pouzar, abbreviat- tion of the rules would be of considerable ed: Bankera fuligineo-alba (Fries) Pouzar." value for the study of synonymy. We there- fore propose that only the connecting words 234. To leave out Recommendation SOB "et", "in", "ex", "sensu", and "emendavit" altogether. should be used, and with the following Motivation: The name proposed in meanings: the manuscript is not published at all (not e t: when connecting the names of authors even not validly) and its publication by an- having the same relation to the cited name other author is a publication de novo and of a taxon. not a validation. According to Rec. 46B it is necessary to use "in" in such cases (see 232. We therefore propose that Article 46 below!). A name published as a synonym is should be supplemented as follows: not published validly (Art. 37). "If two (or more) authors were equally concerned with the publication of a name, 235. To leave out Recommenrlation SOD the names of both of (or the last two) are altogether, and to decide clearly when square linked by means of the conjunction "et". If brackets should be used ("ex" to be reserved a taxon has been described by more than only for validation). The authors of these three authors, the first three authors are proposals are not unanimous in their opinion cited and "et al." is added." whether square brackets should be used e x: should be used in the case of any at all: validation of a name not validly published a) On the one hand it is possible to take to the according Code. Article 49 as basis and use square brackets In the Code "ex" has been recommended for a new combination with simultaneous in Rec. 46A, 50B and 50D. Rec. 46A and validation of the name. 50D deal with validation, Rec. SOBis, accord- E x a m p 1 e: Kiitzing (1845) described ing to our opinion, a contradiction of Rec. Closteriumnlaece. Ralfs (1848) transferredthis 46B, and here the connecting word "in" species to Tetmemorus and validated it at should be used. the same time (starting-point). Citation: Tet- memorus laecis Ralfs. We therefore propose that: [Kiitz.] b) On the other hand square brackets may 233. Recommendation 46A should run as be omitted altogether from the citation of follows: authors and the cited example may be writ- "When a name has been proposed but not ten: Tetnmemoruslae;is (Kiitz.) ex Ralfs. validly published by one author and is sub- sequently validly published (validated) by 236. We that it should be another propose clearly author, to whom the authorship of decided wliich of the two mentioned this taxon has been pos- ascribed, then the name sibilities should be If method of the second adopted. (a) author, who has validly pub- should be decided it would be lished the should upon, necessary name, be added in the to add after Article 49 a new Recommendation citation to the name of the original author 49A as follows: by means of the connecting word "ex". This holds also for the validation of a name in "If simultaneously with change of rank a "starting-point"works, for the names of taxa taxon is validated, the original author is cited in brackets. The citation be ab- of garden origin with the authorship shown square may by the abbreviation "hort." etc. The citation breviated by leaving out the name of the author of authors connected by means of "ex" may original (in brackets). be abbreviated but then the name of the E x a m p I e: Agaricus trib. Amanrita[Pers.] author who validly published the name (cited Fr. 280

This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:55:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 237. If (b) should be adopted, then conditions mentioned above are simultaneously Recoimmendation49A should be changed as adhered to. Otherwise it would not be pos- follows: sible to distinguish them from mere conm- "If the rank of a taxon is changed when plements of the diagnosis, the combining and it is validated, the name of the validator is separating of some species, etc. If carried to added after "ex" behind the name of the extremes, every smallest supplement to a original author, which is enclosed in paren- diagnosis would then warrant treating as an theses." emendation. E x a m p 1e: Agaricus trib. Amanita(Pers.) In the Code, Recommendation 47A deals ex Fr. with emendation, but only very vaguely. We that here a suitable abbreviation rWedo not agree with the introduction of suggest (as the new connecting word "per" recommended e.g. "emendavit", "pro parte", "mutatis characteribus" by Donk in the Taxon 6: 256. 1957 for the and many others) should be recommended for the indication of the citation of names validated in the "starting- "nature of the and the point" work. change author if this is "more im- in: should be used in the sense of responsible", change only portant". We consider this subjective evalua- Recommendation 46B. tion in the Code as untenable. 238. We propose the supplementation of We therefore recommend: Recommendation 46B as follows: "The citation of authors connected by 239. That the text of Recommendation means of "in" may be abbreviated, but in 47A should be altered altogether to run as such cases it is necessary to retain the name follows: of the author who supplied the name (it is "If the change mentioned in Article 47 cited first)." applies to general correction of an old, We propose the following alterations and incorrectly described taxon and is followed additions to the examples: by an alteration of the original concept of the of the im- "Ex a m e s: Viburnum ternatum Reh- author, original diagnosis (in pl and of the der in abbreviated: Viburnum ter- portant features) diagnostic Sargent, the name of the author of the natum Rehder. - Rhabdoderma lineare features, is added to the author Schmidle et Lauterb. in abbreviat- change original by Schmidle, means of the abbreviation "emend." ed: Rhabdodermalineare Schmidle et Lauterb. (= emendavit)." - Thelephora areolata Chaillet in Fries, abbreviated Thelephora areolata Chaillet E x a m p 1 e: In the year 1892 Pteromonas Stein (although Fries's work is "starting-point", cordiformis was described. The descrip- Chaillet's species was described here for the tion is incomplete and cannot be used for first time and not validated). the description of any single species of this Stein's include several e m e nd. (= be used genus. drawings types, emendavit): may out of which no for taxonomic correction of an iconotype was determined. only general In 1957 Fott and the old, incorrectly described taxon, in cases changed supplemented where the correction concerns the original diagnosis, chose an iconotype cor- original to the he was of the author, the diagnosis responding species studying, concept original and to this is in features and so are applied species Stein's original changed important name. Citation: Pteromonas Stein emend. the diagnostic features which distinguish it from other taxa. Fott." We consider a taxon as incorrectlydescribed 240. That from Article 48 the words from systematically if, the point of view of "mutatischaracteribus etc." should be omitted. the emendator, it is based erroneous upon About the other abbreviations mentioned features (e.g. the mistake of droplets fatty in Recommendation 47A see note belowl for fungous spores, Velenovsky 1947) as, from the point of view of the emendator, there s e n s u: should be used in the case of would be no specimen agreeing precisely a changed (later) concept of a taxon with with the original diagnosis. exclusion of type. It is necessary to limit the cases where This is actually the case of a mistake by "emendavit" is used to those where all the a later author, who applied an old name to 281

This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:55:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions specimens that are not taxonomically identical (inclusive), in litt. (in litteris), in mscr. (in with the type (and thus change also the manuscripto), in sched. (in schedis), mut. original diagnosis and content). char. (mutatis characteribus), nom. amb. (nomen ambiguum), nom. cons. (nomen con- 241. We suggest the inclusion in the Code servandum),nom. dub. (nomen dubium), nom. of a new Recommendation 47B with the nud. (nomen nudum), non, nec, non sensu, following wording: p.p. (pro parte), pro syn. (pro synonynum), "If the change mentioned in Article 47 sec. (secundum),sensu ampl. (sensu ampliore), sensu sensu str. sensu was caused a by the latiore, (sensu stricto), by misinterpretation teste etc. later author who applied the old name to orig. (sensu originali), specimens that are not systematically identical There may be a great many similar ex- with the type, or if the same name was used pressions, and also short Latin sentences may later in several different concepts, and it is be used. According to the Code some of them not certain which of them corresponds to the should be used obligatorily ("nom. cons."), type, then to the name (of the original others are only recommended. Their use may author) is added the name of the later author, be generally welcomed, as they facilitate the (whose concept we have in mind), preceded study of synonymy considerably, but they by "sensu". must be lucid and concise. They belong, E x a m p 1 e: In 1903 Anabaena planctonica however, to a different category from the Brunnth. was described. In 1920 G. M. Smith connecting words mentioned above, which applied the same name (including the ab- are used only in a particular closely defined breviation of the author's name Brunnthaler) sense. They must always be put at the end to the Anabaena solitaria f. smithii of today. of the respective citation (behind the year). To the synonymy of this form belongs "Ana- baena Brunnth. sensu G. NI. planctonica 242. We therefore the inclusion Smith, 1920." suggest in the Code of a new Recommaendation47C About the use of the expressions "sensu as follows: stricto", "non sensu" etc. see note below! "If the is not so as to Note: In the text the connect- change important preceding necessitate the of the citation words that should be used in cita- complementing ing only with the author's name it does not tions between the authors of taxa liave been (if comply with the conditions as set down in Rec. 47A discussed. The sense in which the various and it be means of words should be used has also been defined. 47B), may expressed by suitable Latin abbreviation. how- In there exists a number of any This, addition, great is not a of the citation it Latin abbreviations which have the character ever, part itself, serves as a note and is of notes. Such notes are often used for com- only complementary behind the complete citation. plementing the citations of taxa. As an always put example we quote: ampl. (= amplificavit), E x a m p 1 e s: Trichodesmium Ehrenb. ex auct. mult. (auctorum multorum), auct. non Gonm.Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot., ser. 7, 16: 193. (auctorum, non...), corr. (correxit), excl. 1893, nom. cons., sensu lato sec. Prescott; descr. (exclusive descriptio), excl. gen. (ex- -Enteronorpha Link in Nees Hort. Phys. cluso genere, exclusis generibus), excl. spec. Berol. 5, 1820, nom. cons., p.p. - Bartlingia (exclusa specie, exclusis speciebus), excl. var. Brogn. Ann. Sci. Nat. 1, 10: 373. 1827, non (exclusa varietate, exclusis varietatibus), incl. Reichenb., nec F. Muell."

XXI. PROPOSALS FOR SOME CORRECTIONS J. Dostil (Praha) The InternationalCode of Botanical Nomen- seem obvious, it has not always been possible clature is a book published for the purpose to satisfy it whilst elaborating such com- of helping botanists working in taxonomy to prehensive and heterogenous material, be- attain precision and clearness in designating cause of the constant adjustments of the text plants by means of names, and in citing and of the arrangement of the book, and authors and their publications. It is therefore of the short time available for the prepara- a primary requirement that this book should tion of the manuscript. It is the indisputable be outstanding in its precision, uniformity merit of the secretary and of the editorial and clearness. Even though this need would committee that the Paris edition of the Code 282

This content downloaded from 212.238.114.212 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:55:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions