International Plant Names Index Research Articles

The word description as used in Art. 38.1 is not explicitly defined in the Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Therefore, it is a daily struggle for indexers and users of algal, fungal and plant names to assess whether names are validly published with the descriptive text provided. This is made worse because direction from specialist committees that provide a decision on whether a descriptive statement satisfies the requirements of a description, as provided for in Art. 38.4, is increasingly contradictory. This is partly the result of strong opposing opinions that have taken hold because of a lack of guidance in the Code. Description is by some defined in a strict sense that any descriptive statement is sufficient for valid publication. This results from the statement in Art. 38 Note 2 that a description need not be diagnostic. However, as the committees under Art. 38.4 regularly considered names that have a descriptive statement as not validly published, this cannot be the only guiding principle. We therefore propose to add a new Article defining description similar to how Art. 38.2 defines diagnosis, making it clear which kinds of descriptive statements are insufficient for valid publication. There are three main issues the editors of the International Plant Names Index (IPNI; https://www.ipni.org/) regularly encounter and which invariably cause opposing opinions. The first issue that is occasionally encountered is new species names within the same genus or infraspecific names within the same species that have exactly the same description. A recent example is Triticum durum f. tristepseudoalbiprovinciale Lyapunova (in Vavilov J. Genet. Breed. 21: 156. 2017), which has exactly the same description “albo in combinatio cum nigro gluma color nigromarginata” as T. durum f. tristeboeufii Lyapunova and T. durum f. tristemuticoboeufii Lyapunova published as new in the same paper. Strictly speaking, all three taxa have a description but it seems undesirable that new taxa published under the same taxon in the same paper have the same description and suggests the statement was not intended to describe the taxa. We encounter similar cases with diagnoses, such as a recent find that was an assumed earlier publication of Nepenthes macfarlanei Hemsl. (in Nature 71(1851): 599. 1905), with the descriptive statement that it “differs from all other known species, except N. Lowii, in the underside of the lip being thickly beset with stiff bristles, interspersed with honey-glands”. Although this diagnosis distinguished the new taxon “from other taxa” (Art. 38.2), it did not distinguish the new taxon from all taxa being compared to it. We therefore propose to add a qualification to the words “other taxa” in Art. 38.2. “38.2. A diagnosis of a taxon is a statement of that which in the opinion of its author distinguishes the taxon from all other taxa being compared to it.” The second issue is single words or a combination of these words that only describe habit, height, stem width or stem circumference of taxa, mostly trees. These statements often come from notes on herbarium labels or are part of the description of economic features. Although economic features on their own are not considered sufficient under Art. 38.3, the height, width and circumference of a tree trunk can serve both economic and taxonomic descriptive purposes. Other statements that have been deemed sufficient are absolute statements of length, e.g. Alsophila brunoniana Wall. (Numer. List: 241, n. 7073. 1832) has a statement “Hujus filicis arborea caudex ped. 45 altus ab ampliss. Procuratione Brit. Ind. Orient Museum Britanico anno 1831 donatio”, which we consider a description of a single specimen rather than “of the taxon” as specified in Art. 38.1(a) and therefore not in compliance with that Article. Another example which is widely considered not to be validly published is Hydnocarpus anthelminthicus Pierre ex Laness. (Pl. Util. Col. Franç.: 303. 1886), for which, apart from economic information on the wood, the height and width are given: “Arbre de 8 à 15 mètres de hauteur sur 20 à 25 centimètres de diamètre.” “38.1.bis. A description of a taxon is a statement describing a feature or features of an individual taxon. A validating description (Art. 38.1) need not be diagnostic. A description is considered insufficient for the requirements of Art. 38.1 if (a) an identical statement is used in the same work (publication as a whole, see Art. 37.5) for a species description within the same genus or for an infraspecific taxon description within the same species, (b) the description applies only to a single individual plant or specimen rather than the taxon, or (c) the description is limited to habit, height, stem width, stem circumference, or a combination of these. Statement (c) could however be sufficient as a diagnosis under Art. 38.2.” The third issue is so-called negative descriptions, i.e. only a statement on how an existing taxon differs from the new taxon. Although it seems obvious to us that Art. 38.2 clearly defines diagnosis as “distinguishes the taxon from other taxa” and not the other way round, this has recently been challenged. The Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants recently deemed such a statement as sufficient under Art. 38.4 for Agave gustaviana J.N. Haage & E. Schmidt (in Pflanzen-Verzeichnis 1874: 1. 1874), the description of which is “nähert sich in der Form der Blätter und im Habitus einigermassen der prächtigen A. Vershaffelti; bei letzterer sind jedoch die Blätter kürzer, gedrängter, eine dichtere Rosette bildend und von starker blaugrauer Färbung”. [In the form of the leaves and in the habit somewhat approaches the splendid A. Vershaffelti; in the latter, however, the leaves are shorter, more crowded, forming a denser rosette, and of a strong bluish-grey colour.] If a descriptive statement indicates that an existing taxon differs from the new species because the existing one has yellow flowers, we do not know the colour of the flowers of the new taxon and therefore in our opinion this cannot be considered a description. The name Agave gustaviana is now rejected, so the addition of a Note will not change existing nomenclature but will prevent such names being accepted in the future because indexers like IPNI have always considered those not to be validly published. “Note 2. Whereas a A diagnosis must comprise one or more descriptive statements on how the new taxon differs from one or more other taxa (Art. 38.2 and 38.3), a validating description (Art. 38.1) need not be diagnostic. A statement on how one or more existing taxa differ from the new taxon is not sufficient to satisfy Art. 38.2.”

“38.4. When it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement satisfies the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diagnosis” or whether a name was accepted by its author in the original publication (Art. 36.1), 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.” The present proposal was first considered after discussing the curious nomenclatural case of the name or phrase “Senecio tenuifolius. Ucranicus. […]” mentioned by Besser (Enum. Pl.: 33. 1822; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/6089486) in the following statement and discussion regarding the (unnamed?) species No. 1082: “(arenarius. MB. in lit. | (tenuifolius. Ucranicus | Cat. h. Cremen. 1816. p. 129. | Species haec mihi nondum clara. Possideo specimen siccum inscriptum „Folia subcarnosa, sicut tota planta incana. Affinis S. erucaefolio” ab ipso Auctore. Specimina nostri Senecionis ucranici cum illo communicata declarat pro S. arenario, ast nostri folia nec subcarnosa, nec similia specimini prius memorato ex Rossiae minoris arena mobili; neque similis S. erucaefolia ab Jll. Steven mecum communicato. Nostrum non esse. S. tenuifolium austriacum patet ex calyce (Confer. Cat. H. Crem. l. c.) Foliorum forma variabilis uti affinium.” Before 2015, that statement was not viewed as the validation of the species name “Senecio ucranicus”. However, the name Senecio ucranicus Besser (l.c. 1822) is currently listed in the International Plant Names Index (IPNI: https://www.ipni.org/n/60470182-2 accessed 24 Jan 2023) as validly published, while the name S. ucranicus Hodálová (in Folia Geobot. 34: 334. 1999) is treated in IPNI as an illegitimate later homonym (https://www.ipni.org/n/1011450-1 accessed on same date). According to Kanchi Gandhi (pers. comm., email message of 18 May 2018 to Sergei Mosyakin), this decision was based on the opinion of Werner Greuter, who in his email message of 22 October 2015 to Kanchi Gandhi provided the following information: “Besser disagrees with MB's [Marschall von Bieberstein's] opinion that his Ukrainian plant (i.e. S. tenuifolius var. affinis, referred to as S. tenuifolius “ucranicus” by a slip of the pen) is the same as MB's S. arenarius; he [Besser] treats it as a taxonomically doubtful species (“species mihi nondum clara”) for which he accepts the name S. ucranicus (mentioned in genitive in the text and easily overlooked because not in italics). There is scant descriptive matter in the 1822 text (“folia non subcarnosa”), but the reference to the 1816 footnote description [Besser, Cat. Hort. Cremeneci: 129. 1816] validates the name unquestionably.” However, Mosyakin (in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 48: 126–130. 2017) and Mosyakin & Shiyan (in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 76: 473–485. 2019) provided arguments in favour of a different interpretation of Besser's text. According to these authors, the name “Senecio ucranicus” was never validated by Besser (l.c. 1822) because he did not accept that name; moreover, this binomial does not exist because the word “Ucranicus” was not intended as a specific epithet (Mosyakin, l.c. 2017: 126). Mosyakin (l.c. 2017: 127) also commented that, by the word “Ucranicus” following the epithet “tenuifolius”, Besser simply indicated that the name S. tenuifolius was (mis)applied by him in 1816 (Besser, l.c. 1816: 129) to Ukrainian plants. In modern terms, it is equivalent to citing “S. tenuifolius sensu Besser (1816), quoad plantae ucrainicae, non Jacquin (1775)”. Throughout Besser's Enumeratio (l.c. 1822), he consistently used italic for scientific names and the information on distribution generally followed a name and was in Roman type, just as “Ucranicus” appears following the epithet “tenuifolius”. It should also be noted that neither Besser nor his student and follower Andrzejowski mentioned the name “Senecio ucranicus” in their post-1822 publications. This name is also absent in labels of all available herbarium specimens of Senecio sensu lato deposited in the Besser memorial herbarium (KW-BESS) at the National Herbarium of Ukraine (KW). The main taxonomic and nomenclatural problem is that specimens from Ukraine identified by Besser as “Senecio tenuifolius”, “Senecio tenuifolius?” (G00471754), or “Senecio affinis tenuifolio & borysthenico” (G00471752) and at present deposited in G (syntypes of S. praealtus var. borysthenicus DC., Prodr. 6: 351. 1838; see Mosyakin & al. in Candollea 74: 217–221. 2019; and Mosyakin & Shiyan, l.c.) and KW (several specimens, see Mosyakin & Shiyan, l.c.) evidently belong to the species currently accepted as Jacobaea borysthenica (DC.) B. Nord. & Greuter (in Willdenowia 36: 712. 2006 ≡ S. praealtus var. borysthenicus DC. ≡ S. borysthenicus (DC.) Andrz. ex Czern., Conspect. Pl. Charc.: 32. 1859). If we, contrary to the arguments presented by Mosyakin (l.c. 2017) and Mosyakin & Shiyan (l.c.), assume that the name S. ucranicus was validly published by Besser, the specific epithet ucranicus would have priority for the species of Jacobaea now generally accepted as J. borysthenica, and a new combination in that genus with the epithet “ucranica” will be required. Initially, one of us (SM) thought that the best solution, most probably accurately reflecting the original intention of Besser (l.c. 1822), for safeguarding the widely accepted name Jacobaea borysthenica (≡ Senecio borysthenicus) and preserving the nomenclatural stability in this taxonomically complicated group of Jacobaea, would be to make a binding decision that the name “S. ucranicus” Besser was not validly published, for the reasons discussed and explained above and, in more detail, in Mosyakin (l.c. 2017) and Mosyakin & Shiyan (l.c.). However, one of us (JM) correctly indicated that a request for a binding decision is currently (under Art. 38.4 of the Shenzhen Code: Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) possible only when “it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement satisfies the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a description or diagnosis”, which is not the case with Besser's text (see the comment by Greuter cited above). We therefore have a situation where some experts (e.g. Werner Greuter, Kanchi Gandhi) treat the name “Senecio ucranicus” Besser as validly published while others (e.g. the present authors) consider that name not to exist, which leaves the names of at least two accepted taxa, Jacobaea borysthenica (see above) and S. ucranicus Hodálová (≡ S. hercynicus subsp. ucranicus (Hodálová) Greuter [or subsp. ucranicus Greuter] in Willdenowia 33: 247. 2003), unresolved in a nomenclatural limbo. We therefore propose to amend Art. 38.4 of the Code by allowing a request for a binding decision when it is doubtful whether a name was accepted by its author in the original publication. We estimate that there are not many doubtful cases such as the one described above. In particular, we considered some supposedly provisional names published but not accepted by Klokov (see, e.g., Mosyakin in Phytotaxa 258: 164–170. 2016). We do not therefore expect too many proposals of this type. We are grateful to Kanchi Gandhi (Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries, Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.) and Werner Greuter (Herbarium Mediterraneum, c/o Orto Botanico, Palermo, Italy and Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin [BGBM], Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) for their comments and the kind permission to use their unpublished email exchange, and to Nicholas J. Turland (BGBM) and John H. Wiersema (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) for their useful suggestions and editorial comments.

International Plant Names Index Research Articles

Related Topics

Articles published on International Plant Names Index

Global access to nomenclatural botanical resources: Evaluating open access availability

Ten years and a million links: building a global taxonomic library connecting persistent identifiers for names, publications and people.

Demonstration of Taxonomic Name Data Services through ChecklistBank

Community Curation of Nomenclatural and Taxonomic Information in the Context of the Collection Management System JACQ

Safeguarding Access to 500 Years of Biodiversity Data: Sustainability planning for the Biodiversity Heritage Library

Ten Years and a Million Links: Building a global taxonomic library connecting persistent identifiers for names (LSIDs), publications (DOIs), and people (ORCIDs)

Australian National Species List: name identifier management and linkages

Planning the Migration to a New Database: Implications for the Collections of Meise Botanic Garden

A Strategy for Building the WFO Plant List

WFO-IDs: Unique Identifiers for All Known Plants Managed by the World Flora Online

(284) Proposal to add a Note after Article H.9.1 to clarify that a statement of the names of parent species is sufficient for valid publication of the name of a nothogenus

(2957) Proposal to conserve the name Dryopteris affinis (Lowe) Fraser‐Jenk. against D. affinis Kinahan (Pteridophyta: Dryopteridaceae)

(267–269) Proposals to define description and amend the definition of diagnosis in Article 38

Morphological Characterization and Conservation Status for the Herbarium Specimens of Orchidaceae in Kurdistan Iraq

(217) Proposal to amend Article 38.4 to allow binding decisions on whether a name was accepted by its author(s) in the original publication

Ethnopharmacology, Botanical Description and Phytochemistry of Premna barbata: An Unexplored Medicinal Plant Species from Lamiaceae Family

Ethnopharmacological Study of Medicinal Plants in the Rawamerta Region Karawang, West Java, Indonesia

The World Flora Online: Summary and Status

Demonstration of the New IPNI (International Plant Names Index) Registration System

Rhakhis: A workflow for managing the WFO taxonomic backbone

Lead the way for us