(270) Proposal to add a Note after Article 40.1 to clarify that elements that cannot serve as types on their own should not be considered as part of a type indication

Abstract

It is now commonplace for authors to supplement the holotype by citing illustrations, mostly digital images of specimens. Digital images with a caption stating that they are the holotype are also sometimes included when a nomenclatural novelty is published. For orchids in particular, it is common to cite the wild-collected plants that were cultivated and from which a specimen was subsequently made. There has been debate as to whether such names should be considered validly published, because more than one element is cited as the holotype (contrary to Art. 8.1 of the Shenzhen Code, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Even though this should be discouraged, it is now common practice, so we propose a new Note to make it clear that elements cited as part of the type indication that, on their own, cannot serve as a type under Art. 8 and 40 should not be taken into account when assessing whether a name is validly published. “Note n. When elements are cited as part of the type indication that cannot on their own serve as types as defined under Art. 8 and 40 (e.g. living organisms cited contrary to Art. 8.4 or illustrations cited contrary to Art. 40.4), they should not be taken into account and do not affect valid publication of the name.”