Article 10.2 is rather long and rambling, and not easily readable. Furthermore, upon close reading, its relationship with Art. 40 is not well handled. Article 40 is fairly complicated in its approach to types: Art. 40.1 uses “indicated” in a wide sense, which includes “designated”. The first sentence of Art. 40.3 more or less defines the “indication of the type” of names of genera, or subdivisions of genera, other than by designation. Namely, as “reference (direct or indirect) to a single species name, or citation of the holotype or lectotype of a single previously or simultaneously published species name” at valid publication (that is, in the protologue). Turning to Art. 10.2, some questions can be raised. (1) When does this indicated type (that is, indicated other than by designation) actually become the type? Article 10.2(a) mentions this indicated type as an exception, which prevents the choosing of a type, but does not state what happens in other respects. Is “indication” by itself enough to establish a type? (2) The first part of the first sentence of Art. 10.2 refers to the type “of one […] previously or simultaneously published species name […]”, but then invokes Art. 40.3, which rules that if a single type “of a single previously or simultaneously published species name” is included in the protologue, this is already regarded as “indication of the type”. So in effect this component is present twice in Art. 10.2, the one instance cancelling the other, which is not only pointless but unwanted, because it makes Art. 10.2 harder to read. (3) Article 10.2 includes the phrase “unless (a) the type was indicated […] or designated by the author of the name”. Article 46 defines who is the author of a name, and clearly there is no requirement that the author of a name needs to have written the entire protologue. So, why would it not be possible for one or more of the other authors of the protologue (that is, other than the author of the name) to designate, or otherwise indicate, a type? And why should this not count? (4) Article 10.1 necessarily should apply to all names of genera, and subdivisions of genera, but why should Art. 10.2 do so? The typification of names based on a basionym and of replacement names is governed elsewhere, namely in Art. 7.3–7.5. “10.2. The type of a name of a genus or of a subdivision of a genus, published as the name of a new taxon (Art. 6.9), is to be established as follows: (a) The type is established if it is designated in the protologue, otherwise indicated (Art. 40.3) in the protologue, or determined by Art. 10.8. (b) If the type was not established under (a), it is to be chosen (but see Art. 10.5–10.7) from among the types of previously or simultaneously published species names definitely included (see Art. 10.3) in the protologue. For a sanctioned name (Art. F.3), the choice of type may also be made from among the types of species names definitely included in the sanctioning treatment. (c) If the type was not established under (a) and cannot be established under (b), it is to be chosen otherwise, but the choice is to be superseded if it can be demonstrated that the selected type is not conspecific with any of the material associated with either the protologue or the sanctioning treatment.” This borrows from Prop. 084 (Wisnev in Taxon 70: 908–909. 2021) in that it makes sense to put the equivalents of holotype-lectotype-neotype in just that order. Article 40.1 uses “indicated” in a wide sense, which includes “designated”, so is less appropriate here. Given that Art. 40.3 more or less defines “indication of the type” (other than by designation) for names of genera, or subdivisions of genera, and that this definition is already hard enough to keep in mind, it seems unnecessarily confusing to expand this definition here, ad hoc, by trying to force Art. 10.8 into this same concept as well. A further option would be to integrate Art. 10.8 here (as a separate clause following clause (a)). “48.2. For the purpose of Art. 48.1, exclusion of a type means exclusion of (a) the holotype under Art. 9.1 or the original type established under Art. 10.2(a) or all syntypes under Art. 9.6 or all elements eligible as types under Art. 10.2; […].” “52.2. For the purpose of Art. 52.1, definite inclusion of the type of a name is effected by citation of (a) the holotype under Art. 9.1 or the original type established under Art. 10.2(a) or all syntypes under Art. 9.6 or all elements eligible as types under Art. 10.2; […].” In both provisions, instead of “the original type established under Art. 10.2(a)” this could be “the original type established at valid publication under Art. 10”. The occurrences of “original type” in Art. 22.2, 48.2, and 52.2 go back to Prop. 218 to the Tokyo Congress (Greuter in Taxon 41: 783. 1992). Apparently the term intends to convey something like the “type of a name of genus, or subdivision of a genus, established in the original publication”. However, it is not defined as such, and is not uniformly used throughout the Code. In line with normal English usage, the reader will rather expect the “original type” to be the type established originally, but replaced later: see Art. 6 Ex. 4 and Art. 48 Note 2. Also: “original type citation” (Art. 9 Ex. 3), “original type specimen” (Art. 9.15), and “original type elements” (Art. 14 Ex. 10). This is unnecessarily confusing. “It is also effected (e) by citation of the name itself or any name homotypic at that time, unless the type is at the same time excluded (as defined in Art. 48.2) either explicitly or by implication.” It seems logical to make the criteria for excluding a type for the purposes of Art. 52.2(e) the same as those for excluding a type for the purposes of Art. 48. The latter criteria are the same as those for including a type for the purposes of Art. 52. This addition would effect a nice symmetry all round. Perhaps also include this in Art. 47.1? “48.2. For the purpose of Art. 48.1, exclusion of a type means exclusion, for the name itself, or, if it has one, its basionym (Art. 7.3), or its replaced synonym (Art. 7.4 and 7.5), of […].” “52.2. For the purpose of Art. 52.1, definite inclusion of the type of a name is effected by citation, for the name itself, or, if it has one, its basionym (Art. 7.3), or its replaced synonym (Art. 7.4 and 7.5), of […].” Article 48.2 and 52.2 specify what is intended by exclusion/inclusion of the type in Art. 48.1 and 52.1. Not specified is the relationship between the name in Art. 48.1 and 52.1 of which the type is excluded/included (in Art. 52.1 the name causing superfluity) and the one focused on in Art. 48.2 and 52.2. If Art. 48.1/52.1 deals with a name A, based on a basionym B, the “all elements eligible as types” of Art. 48.2/52.2 are the elements eligible as types for basionym B (not for name A) and are to be looked for in the protologue of basionym B (not in the protologue of name A). Similarly for the “all syntypes”, and for replaced synonyms, etc. “22.2. A name of a subdivision of a genus that of which the protologue includes the type, previously or simultaneously established, (i.e. the original type or all elements eligible as type, for the name itself (Art. 10.2), or, if it has one, its basionym (Art. 7.3), or its replaced synonym (Art. 7.4 and 7.5), or the previously designated type) of the adopted, legitimate name of the genus is not validly published unless its epithet repeats the generic name unaltered.” Valid publication is a matter of nomenclature, and should not depend on taxonomy: inclusion in the protologue is what counts here (for the rationale behind Art. 22.2 see Greuter in Taxon 41: 781–783. 1992). Article 22.2 contains the same flaw as noted in Prop. 173 for Art. 48.2 and 52.2. Another problem is that the phrase in parentheses, following “the type”, is not a clarification of what is meant by “the type”, but expands on this, adding “all elements eligible as type”. Also, Art. 22.2 uses “original type” in an unhappy sense (see above). Similar considerations should also apply to Art. 26.2.