(138–141) Proposals regarding types and supersession (amendments to Articles 7.2–7.4, 8.1, and 10.9, and a new Note after Article 9.19)

Abstract

Article 7.2 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) states that the type of a name of a taxon is permanently attached to the name. This is generally correct, but overlooks superseded types, as well as those destroyed, lost, or missing. “7.2. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached (unless it is superseded, destroyed, lost, or missing), whether as the correct name or as a synonym.” While Art. 7.3–7.5 all deal with automatic typifications, Art. 7.5 is the only one that uses the term “automatically”. Interestingly, that provision is not fully automatic, because the automatic typification applies “unless a different type was designated or definitely indicated in the protologue”. In contrast, both Art. 7.3 and 7.4 are fully automatic without exceptions. To avoid any potential confusion or even a conflict with rules in Art. 9 providing for a holotype or lectotype, it seems preferable to state that they apply automatically as well. The same issue arises in Art. 10.9 and 10.10: in both Articles typification is automatic, but it is stated to be so only in Art. 10.10. Unlike the similar provision in Art. 10.1, Art. 10.9 does not expressly state that the generic name is “considered the full equivalent of its type”. “7.3. A new combination or a name at new rank (Art. 6.10) is typified automatically by the type of the basionym even though it may have been applied erroneously to a taxon now considered not to include that type (but see Art. 48.1).” “7.4. A replacement name (Art. 6.11) is typified automatically by the type of the replaced synonym even though it may have been applied erroneously to a taxon now considered not to include that type (but see Art. 41 Note 3 and 48.1).” “10.9. The type of a name of a family or of any subdivision of a family is automatically the same as that of the generic name from which it is formed (see Art. 18.1). For purposes of designation or citation of a type, the generic name alone suffices, i.e. it is considered as the full equivalent of its type. The type of a name of a family or subfamily not formed from a generic name is the same as that of the corresponding alternative name (Art. 18.5 and 19.8).” Make a conforming amendment to the definition of “automatic typification” in the Glossary. Article 8.1 states that the “type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype) of a name of a species” is a specimen or illustration. The Article does not mention epitypes or conserved types, even though it appears that all of the rules in Art. 8 apply to them as well. “8.1. The type (holotype, lectotype, or neotype see Art. 7.2) of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is a holotype (Art. 9.1), lectotype (Art. 9.3), neotype (Art. 9.8), or conserved type (Art. 14.9), any of which may be supported by an epitype (Art. 9.9). Such a type is either a single specimen conserved in one herbarium or other collection or institution, or a published or unpublished illustration (but see Art. 8.5; see also Art. 40.4, 40.5, and Art. 40 Ex. 6).” Make a conforming amendment to the definition of “nomenclatural type” in the Glossary. Article 9.19 states that a type can be superseded if one of three conditions is met. However, it does not state how to effect the supersession, or that the earlier designated type ceases to be the type. A Note to this effect would be useful. “Note n. Supersession is automatic if the holotype is found to exist. In all other cases, it is effected by designating a new lectotype, if appropriate original material is available, or a neotype. Upon supersession, the earlier designated element ceases to be the type.” I thank Nicholas J. Turland and John H. Wiersema for their assistance with this proposal.