(088–090) Proposals to amend Articles 7.11, 9.23 and 40.6 to clarify equivalence to their terms

Abstract

Article 7.11 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) rules that “designation of a type is achieved only […] if the type element is clearly indicated by direct citation including the term “type” (typus) or an equivalent […]”. In this formulation there is some vagueness about what should be considered as an equivalent of the term “type” (typus). This is clarified partly in the Examples given after Art. 7.11, but, in my opinion, a more precise formulation is needed. An equivalent of the term “type” (typus) can take different forms, i.e. its equivalent in a modern language other than English, a term containing the word element “type” (either in Latin or its equivalent in a modern language), an abbreviation of any of these Latin or modern-language terms or the phrase “standard species” as provided in Art. 7 *Ex. 16. The unclear formulation “or an equivalent” with respect to “type” in Art. 7.11, which has been unchanged since the adoption of the respective proposal (McNeill in Taxon 35: 873–874, prop. (292). 1986) for the Berlin Code (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 118. 1988), is still a source of confusion and misinterpretation. For example, Jarvis (Order out of Chaos: 466. 2007) considered that a designation of lectotype of Thymus pulegioides L. (Sp. Pl.: 592. 1753) was achieved by Ronniger (in Heilpfl.-Schriftenr. 18: 19. 1944), who used the following phrase in his discussion of the original material of this name (in German): “Die Originalpflanze liegt im Herbar Linné heute noch aufbewahrt” [The original plant is still preserved in the Linnaean Herbarium today] (see Nachychko & Sosnosky in Willdenowia 50: 23–27. 2020). Following the conditions of Art. 7.11, Jarvis (l.c.) obviously took Ronniger's “Originalpflanze” for an equivalent of “type”, and this debatable viewpoint has been adopted in modern taxonomies where the “typification” by Ronniger (l.c.) is treated as acceptable (e.g. Morales in Castroviejo & al., Fl. Iber. 12: 403. 2010; Bartolucci & al. in Taxon 62: 1309. 2013; Nachychko & al. in Phytotaxa 409: 77. 2019). Therefore, I feel that it would be better to amend Art. 7.11, specifying more precisely what an equivalent of the term “type” (typus) is. “7.11. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.19, 9.20, and 10.5), designation of a type is achieved only if (a) the type is definitely accepted as such by the typifying author, if (b) the type element is clearly indicated by direct citation including the a term that is or contains the word element “type” (typus;) or an equivalents in other modern languages and abbreviations permitted; see also Art. 7 *Ex. 16), and, (c) on or after 1 January 2001, if the typification statement includes the phrase “designated here” (hic designatus) or an equivalent.” Additionally to Art. 7.11 and the Examples given after it, Art. 9.23 and 40.6 specify what are the equivalents of the Latin terms lectotypus, neotypus, epitypus, typus and holotypus, by equating the respective term with “its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language”. However, if the Code is interpreted literally, this formulation does not include the abbreviation of the term's equivalent in a modern language. Hence, I propose the following amendments. “9.23. On or after 1 January 2001, lectotypification, neotypification, or epitypification of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is not effected unless indicated by use of the term “lectotypus”, “neotypus”, or “epitypus”, its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language, or abbreviations of these (see also Art. 7.11 and 9.10).” “40.6. For the name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below published on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the words “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language, or abbreviations of these (see also Rec. 40A.1 and 40A.4). But in the case of the name of a monotypic (as defined in Art. 38.6) new genus or subdivision of a genus with the simultaneously published name of a new species, indication of the type of the species name is sufficient.” “Ex. 7. When Stephenson described “Sedum mucizonia (Ortega) Raym.-Hamet subsp. urceolatum” (in Cact. Succ. J. (Los Angeles) 64: 234. 1992) the name was not validly published because the protologue lacked the indication “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language, or abbreviations of these, a requirement for names published on or after 1 January 1990.” I am grateful to Nicholas J. Turland and John H. Wiersema for their valuable comments and suggestions on the manuscript. This work was supported by the SYNTHESYS+ Project (https://www.synthesys.info/, grant numbers CZ-TAF-1288 and AT-TAF-8254).