(227) Proposal to permit a binding decision on whether or not an indirect reference to a basionym or replaced synonym is sufficient for valid publication of a name

Abstract

Recently, a proposal was published to amend the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) to permit a binding decision on valid publication under Art. 38.4 when it is doubtful whether an illustration with analysis is acceptable in place of a description or diagnosis (Prop. 076, Pastore & al. in Taxon 70: 456. 2021). Now we have a similar proposal to permit a binding decision on whether or not an indirect or cryptic reference to a basionym or replaced synonym is sufficient for valid publication. The Code has a number of provisions where an indirect reference to a previous publication can affect the valid publication of a name, e.g. Art. 38.12, 38.13, 40.3, 41.3 and 43.2. According to Art. 41.3: “Before 1 January 1953 an indirect reference (see Art. 38.14) to a basionym or replaced synonym is sufficient for valid publication of a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name.” In some situations, the form in which such a reference appears creates doubt as to whether it fulfils the requirement of Art. 41.3. This situation has no simple solution, and its subjectivity could lead to a name being considered validly published or not depending on the interpretation of the original publication. The case of Polygala pubescens Muhl. was comprehensively described by Pastore & Mota (in Phytotaxa 383: 125–127. 2018), where the authors argued that P. pubescens Muhl. was a replacement name for P. senega var. rosea Michx., because the name at new rank based on Michaux's name was preoccupied by P. rosea Desf. at the time. However, this interpretation has not been widely accepted. The alternative interpretation, that “rosea” was treated by Muhlenberg (Cat. Pl. Amer. Sept.: 63. 1813) as a variety of P. pubescens, a binomial that did not exist at that time, renders P. pubescens var. rosea (Michx.) Muhl. as not validly published. As regards “Polygala pubescens Muhl.”, IPNI (https://www.ipni.org/ accessed 5 Feb 2023) provides the following remarks: “Muhlenberg published Polygala pubescens rosea Mx and thus indirectly referred to P. senega var. rosea Michx. Since P. pubescens remained invalid in 1813, var. rosea Muhl. was also invalidly published.” This situation creates instability for some related names because P. pubescens Mart. (in Denkschr. Königl. Bot. Ges. Regensburg. 1(1): 185. 1815), a heterotypic synonym, is either an illegitimate later homonym or a correct name, and P. pubescens Nutt. (Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 2: 87. 1818) is either a later isonym or a later homonym. Furthermore, there is no provision in the Code to resolve the issue as to whether or not something is a new combination, name at new rank or replacement name, and so a stalemate is reached. Therefore, we present a proposal to modify Art. 41 in order to permit, when it is unclear if a cryptic “indirect reference” satisfies Art. 41.3, the submission of a request for a binding decision to the General Committee. “41.n. When it is doubtful whether an author has satisfied the requirement of Art. 41.3 for an “indirect reference” to a basionym or replaced synonym, a request for a decision may be submitted to the General Committee, which will refer it for examination to the specialist committee for the appropriate taxonomic group (see Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10). A Committee recommendation as to whether or not the name concerned is validly published may then be put forward to an International Botanical Congress and, if ratified, will become a binding decision with retroactive effect. These binding decisions are listed in App. VI.” MM acknowledges financial support from the CAPES via a doctoral degree scholarship grant (688085/2022-00). JFBP and JP acknowledge financial support by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (grants 302972/2020-0 and 307931/2021-8, respectively).