(249–252) Miscellaneous proposals to address inconsistencies in the Code

Abstract

These miscellaneous proposals address minor inconsistencies in various provisions of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Article 7.9 provides that names with starting-points after 1753 are typified by “an element selected from the context of its valid publication […]”. Yet Art. 9 Note 2 states that “only elements from the context of the protologue” are original material if Art. 7.9 applies. The latter seems preferable. “7.9. A name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomenclatural starting-point later than 1 May 1753 (see Art. 13.1) is to be typified by an element selected from the context of its protologue valid publication (Art. 32–45).” Article 11.1 states “Each family or lower-ranked taxon with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name.” However, Art. 11.3 and 11.4 describe the correct name without regard to the circumscription of the taxon. “11.3. For any taxon from with a particular circumscription at the rank of family to genus, inclusive, the correct name is the earliest legitimate one with the same rank, except in cases of limitation of priority by conservation or protection (see Art. 14 and F.2) or where Art. 11.7, 11.8, 19.4, 19.5, 56, 57, F.3, or F.7 apply.” “11.4. For any taxon with a particular circumscription below the rank of genus, the correct name is the combination of the final epithet of the earliest legitimate name of the taxon at the same rank, with the correct name of the genus or species to which it is assigned, except […].” Article 31.1 states that “The date of effective publication is the date on which the printed matter or electronic material became available as defined in Art. 29 and 30.” Not only is there no definition of “became available”, but the rules in Art. 29 and 30 do not even use the term “available” (although three Examples do: Art. 29 Ex. 3 and 4 and Art. 31 Ex. 4). Instead, Art. 29 and 30 generally use the word “distributed”. “31.1. The date of effective publication is the date on which the printed matter or electronic material became available is first distributed as an effective publication in accordance with as defined in Art. 29 and 30. In the absence of proof establishing some other date, the one appearing in the printed matter or electronic material must be accepted as correct.” Article 52.1 states that a name is illegitimate “if it was nomenclaturally superfluous when published, i.e. if the taxon to which it was applied, as circumscribed by its author, definitely included the type […] of a name that ought to have been adopted […] under the rules […].” This is hardly helpful to an inexperienced user of the rules. In marked contrast, Turland (The Code Decoded: 64. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3897/ab.e38075) explicitly states “The rules on priority (Art. 11.3 and 11.4) decide which name or epithet ought to have been adopted.” “52.1. A name, unless conserved (Art. 14), protected (Art. F.2), or sanctioned (Art. F.3), is illegitimate and is to be rejected if it was nomenclaturally superfluous when published, i.e. if the taxon to which it was applied, as circumscribed by its author, definitely included the type (as qualified in Art. 52.2) of a name that ought to have been adopted, or of which the epithet ought to have been adopted, under Art. 11 the rules (but see Art. 52.4 and F.8.1).” We thank Nicholas J. Turland and John H. Wiersema for their helpful revisions and comments.