According to Art. 9.13 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), a name may be neotypified when no original material exists. Then Rec. 9B.1 points out that, in selecting a neotype, there is usually no guide except personal judgement as to what best fits the protologue. It is stated in the Preface of the Shenzhen Code (p. xvi) that Art. 9.4 was amended to make it clear that original material includes illustrations published as part of the protologue. This replaces the rather awkward requirement, first introduced in the Tokyo Code (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 131. 1994), to show that the validating description or diagnosis was based on certain specimens or illustrations in order for them to qualify as original material. Some authors publish names of new species or infraspecific taxa with the holotype as the only original material, although this is not at all a good practice. In such cases, if the holotype is lost or destroyed, there remains no option but to neotypify the name. If a photograph of the holotype is published in the protologue, then it would be available for lectotypification, which is a better option than neotypification. Therefore, we are proposing the following new Recommendation. “40A.7. Authors should publish the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon not only with a holotype but also with isotype(s) and/or paratype(s). The isotype(s) and paratype(s) should preferably be deposited in herbaria other than that in which the holotype is deposited. If it is not possible to preserve any specimens other than the holotype, a photograph of the holotype should be included in the protologue, so that if the holotype is lost or destroyed, the photograph will be available for designation as the lectotype.” We thank the Director, Botanical Survey of India (BSI) and Scientist “E” and Head of the Office, Central National Herbarium, BSI for providing facilities. We also thank Nicholas J. Turland and Dr. John H. Wiersema for their helpful suggestions and refining the manuscript.