Following our simplified taxonomic and nomenclatural concept of generic delimitation in the group of Sorbus s. l. (Rosaceae: Maleae) and recent nomenclatural transfers made in 2025, we provide here some necessary updates and corrections. In particular, by oversight, two nomenclatural combinations based on the same basionym (Sorbus paxiana J & aacute;v.) and referable to the same taxon were published simultaneously in our article of 2025: "Aria paxiana" and "Hedlundia paxiana". Despite the explanation available in our text that in our scheme treating Aria in a wide sense this taxon should be placed in Hedlundia, it looked as publications of two alternative names for the same taxon, and thus the combinations have not been validly published because they were unintentionally (but still confusingly for a potential reader) presented as de facto alternative names. Here the new combination Hedlundia paxiana (J & aacute;v.) Mosyakin, Fedor. & McNeill is properly validated. It is concluded that the combination Aria colchica (Zinserl.) Mezhenskyj was validly published in 2018, despite the error in citing the epithet of the basionym ("buschiana" instead of colchica). New combinations Hedlundia oravica (Velebil, Bern & aacute;tov & aacute;, M. Lep & scaron;& iacute; & P. Lep & scaron;& iacute;) Mosyakin, McNeill & Fedor. and Aria fayana (L. Houston & T.C.G. Rich) Mosyakin, McNeill & Fedor. are validated for two species recently described in Sorbus.

Abstract The article provides updated information about the collections and current research and curatorial activities of the National Herbarium of Ukraine (KW) housed in the M.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kyiv. With its ca. 2,300,000 specimens, the KW herbarium is the second‐largest collection of plants and fungi in eastern Europe. In terms of the number of specimens, it ranks 30th among the world's herbaria and 23rd among the herbaria of Europe. After its formal establishment in 1921, the herbarium incorporated several large herbaria from the universities of Kyiv and Kharkiv, including important 19th‐century collections of W.S.J.G. Besser, A. Andrzejowski, A.S. Rogowicz, I.F. Schmalhausen, and particularly the globally important herbarium of N.S. Turczaninow. The 20th‐century collections of O.V. Fomin, J. Paczoski, V.I. Lipsky, E.I. Bordzilowski, M.V. Klokov, M.I. Kotov, and many others greatly enriched the KW herbarium, especially well documenting the flora and mycobiota of all regions of Ukraine, from the Carpathians in the west to the Donets Ridge in the east, and from the Polissia forests and Prypiat wetlands in the north to the steppes and the Crimean Mountains in the south. The continued war against Ukraine poses severe threats to the KW collections, its holding institution, and its staff. “Digital preservation” of the valuable specimens through their large‐scale digitization and data sharing with researchers worldwide are the most important tasks. Physical preservation and reliable curation of the collections can be achieved through the institutional support and better involvement of the staff of KW and associated researchers in mutually beneficial international research projects. Five examples of possible digitization and data‐sharing project ideas are proposed here: (1) North American specimens of Thomas Nuttall, (2) early New Zealand collections of the Cunningham brothers, (3) the global Schultes Herbarium (now in the Turczaninow historical herbarium), especially his taxa for which original specimens are absent in other herbaria, (4) the worldwide collection of Artemisia in the Besser and Turczaninow historical herbaria, and (5) herbarium genomics, phylogenetics, and phylogeography, with a special emphasis on type specimens and endemic, subendemic, and taxonomically or phytogeographically significant taxa. We hope that the information and ideas presented in this article will guide the efforts of KW and associated staff and will be of interest to researchers worldwide who might apply for joint research projects with KW.

Various options for generic delimitation in Maleae (Rosaceae), specifically the taxa earlier included in Sorbus L. s. l., are discussed. Following the positive decision of the General Committee regarding our recent proposal to conserve the name Aria (Pers.) Host against the earlier names Chamaemespilus Medik. and Torminalis Medik., we conclude that for simplification of the taxonomic schemes and nomenclature in the group of Sorbus and its relatives, an expanded circumscription of Aria (including Chamaemespilus and Torminalis) is desirable; in particular, for preserving numerous names already available in Aria, especially those used for better known species. The European taxa of Sorbus s. l. accepted by Sennikov and Kurtto (2017) and in Atlas Florae Europaeae mostly in hybridogenous genera Karpatiosorbus Sennikov & Kurtto (combining in their genomes the subgenomes of the segregate genera Aria and Torminalis) and Majovskya Sennikov & Kurtto (with subgenomes of Aria and Chamaemespilus) are here transferred to Aria s. l. The names applied to hybridogenous genera Normeyera Sennikov & Kurtto and Scandosorbus Sennikov (≡ Borkhausenia Sennikov & Kurtto, nom. illeg.) that supposedly emerged from hybridization events combining Aria × Chamaemespilus × Sorbus and Aria × Sorbus × Torminalis, respectively, are here treated as synonyms of the hybridogenous generic name Hedlundia Sennikov & Kurtto (Aria s. l. × Sorbus), and the taxa earlier treated in Normeyera and Scandosorbus are here transferred to Hedlundia. In total, 104 new species-rank combinations are validated: 91 in Aria and 13 in Hedlundia. Comments are provided on hybrids (but not for hybridogenous species) between Aria and Sorbus, for which the nothogeneric name ×Arsorbus Su Liu & Z.H. Feng was recently proposed.

The Rangpur lime has been called “ Citrus taitensis Risso” but we show that the correct botanical name for this and other cultivars in this group is Citrus × otaitensis (Risso & Poit.) Risso.

Under the present wording of Art. H.11.1 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), “The name of a nothospecies of which the postulated or known parent species belong to different genera is a combination of a nothogeneric name with a nothospecific epithet.” No other option for naming such bigeneric or multigeneric hybrids is mentioned in the Code, and therefore we think that Art. H.11.1 is restrictive rather than instructive, regardless of the initial intent of the authors of this nomenclatural provision. While considering some problems of taxonomy and nomenclature of Sorbus L. s.l. (see, e.g., Mosyakin & al. in Taxon 71: 480–481. 2022), we noticed that, according to Art. H.11.1 as it stands now, the nothospecies name Majovskya ×ambigua (Decne.) Sennikov & Kurtto (in Memoranda Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 93: 63. 2017) is incorrect because it is not “a combination of a nothogeneric name with a nothospecific epithet”. The same is true for several other names of intergeneric hybrids placed by Sennikov and Kurtto in hybridogenous genera (see below). This conclusion is further supported by Art. H.11 Ex. 1, which states that the name Heuchera ×tiarelloides Lemoine & É. Lemoine (the basionym of ×Heucherella tiarelloides (Lemoine & É. Lemoine) H.R. Wehrh., the intergeneric hybrid that probably “originated from the cross between a garden hybrid of Heuchera L. and Tiarella cordifolia L.”) is incorrect. We interpret the term “incorrect” used here as meaning “not correctly applicable to a particular taxon under a particular taxonomic concept”. Non-compliance with Art. H.11 does not make a name illegitimate or not validly published. Since Majovskya ×ambigua was considered by Sennikov & Kurtto (l.c.) to be a non-stabilized intergeneric hybrid (but not a hybridogenous species!) between Chamaemespilus alpina (Mill.) K.R. Robertson & J.B. Phipps (Sorbus chamaemespilus (L.) Crantz) and Aria edulis (Willd.) M. Roem. (Sorbus aria (L.) Crantz), its correct name under that taxonomic treatment should be a combination of a nothogeneric name, in this case ×Chamaearia Mezhenskyj (Netradytsiini Plodovi Kul'tury: 27. 2012 = Chamaemespilus Medik. × Aria (Pers.) Host) and the epithet “ambigua”: ×Chamaearia ambigua (Decne.) Mosyakin & McNeill, comb. nov. ≡ Aria ambigua Decne. in Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. 10: 165. 1874. As it stands now, Art. H.11.1 requires the double generic nomenclature, with different nothogeneric and generic names for nothospecies and hybridogenous species, respectively, that resulted from the same intergeneric crosses. For example, those entities that originated from crosses between taxa of Chamaemespilus and Aria that are considered to be hybridogenous species should be placed in Majovskya Sennikov & Kurtto (l.c.: 63; a hybridogenous genus), while entities of the same origin considered to be nothospecies (hybrids) should be placed in ×Chamaearia (a nothogenus). By analogy, the hybrid Normeyera ×hostii (J. Jacq. ex Host) Sennikov & Kurtto (l.c.: 65), which “is not considered a constant taxon” (Sennikov & Kurtto, l.c.), under that taxonomic concept should be correctly placed not in the hybridogenous genus Normeyera Sennikov & Kurtto (l.c.: 64) but in the nothogenus ×Chamariosorbus Mezhenskyj (l.c.: 29; Aria × Chamaemespilus × Sorbus) and be called ×Chamariosorbus hostii (J. Jacq. ex Host) Mezhenskyj (l.c.: 29). Our further nomenclatural comments on intergeneric hybrids in Sorbus s.l. will be published separately (in preparation). Considering this and some other similar cases, we propose the following amendment to Art. H.11.1. We also think that adding a new Example based on the case of Majovskya ×ambigua would be useful for illustrating the proposed amendment. “H.11.1. The name of a nothospecies of which the postulated or known parent species belong to different genera is either a combination of a nothogeneric name with a nothospecific epithet or a combination of a name of a hybridogenous genus 1 with a nothospecific epithet.” [footnote] “1 For the purposes of this Code, a hybridogenous genus is a genus that is derived from and has evolved from an intergeneric hybridization event or events and that contains one or more hybridogenous species, i.e. evolutionarily stabilized species that, although of hybrid origin, are regularly treated similarly to other species of non-hybrid origin; however, a hybridogenous genus may also contain hybrids (including intergeneric ones).” “Ex. 1bis. Majovskya ×ambigua (Decne.) Sennikov & Kurtto (in Memoranda Soc. Fauna Fl. Fenn. 93: 63. 2017) is considered to have originated from the cross between Chamaemespilus alpina (Mill.) K. R. Robertson & J. B. Phipps and Aria edulis (Willd.) M. Roem. Sennikov & Kurtto (l.c.) treated it as a non-stabilized intergeneric hybrid (for which, however, the correct name is ×Chamaearia ambigua (Decne.) Mosyakin & McNeill in Taxon 72: 442-443. 2023) but placed it in a hybridogenous genus. Despite that, their combination is considered correct and acceptable under certain taxonomic treatments, e.g. if all crosses between Chamaemespilus Medik. × Aria (Pers.) Host are treated as belonging to a hybridogenous genus but not a nothogenus.” If our proposed amendment is adopted, the definitions of a hybridogenous genus and a hybridogenous species should be added to the Glossary. We are grateful to Nicholas J. Turland (Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) and John H. Wiersema (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) for their useful comments and editing.

their equivalents, is not the holotype.As long as the holotype is extant, it fixes the application of the name concerned (but see Art. 9.15)."Article 40.3 states that "mention of a single specimen or gathering (Art.40.2) or illustration, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type".In contrast, Art.9.1 currently provides that the holotype must be "indicated", although Prop.007 (Turland & al., l.c.2020) proposes that it must be designated, which was the long-standing rule before the Shenzhen Code.The phrase "explicitly designated" in Art.40.3 suggests that there is some unknown distinction between explicit designations and other designations.

The nomenclatural problems emerging from epitype designations (see Art. 9.9, also Art. 9.17, 9.20 and 9.21 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, the “Code”: Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), especially situations when an epitype and the type it supports differ taxonomically, were recently considered and discussed in several publications (e.g. Ariyawansa & al. in Fungal Diversity 69: 57–91. 2014; Rindi & al. in Fottea (Olomouc) 17: 78–88. 2017; Mosyakin & McNeill in Phytotaxa 376: 133–137. 2018; Mosyakin & Mandák in Taxon 67: 1218–1219, 1220–1221. 2018; in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 77: 413–427. 2020; in Taxon 70: 206–207. 2021; Lendemer in Taxon 69: 849–850. 2020), including proposals to amend the Code (e.g. Lendemer in Taxon 69: 631. 2020; Mazumdar & al. in Taxon 69: 631. 2020; Wisnev in Taxon 70: 1382–1383. 2021; de Lírio & al. in Taxon 70: 1384. 2021; Steudel in Taxon 70: 1385–1385. 2021) and summarized by Sennikov (in Nordic J. Bot. 2022(8): e03535. 2022). However, it seems that Sennikov (l.c.) disagreed with our conclusion that “the application of a name is ultimately established by the epitype, not the lectotype (or even the holotype or neotype)” (Mosyakin & McNeill, l.c.: 134) because “this conclusion is in contradiction with the other functions of the primary types” (Sennikov, l.c.: 2). However, let us consider the logic of Art. 9.9. First, it states that an epitype serves as “an interpretative type”. Second, an epitype can be designated “when the holotype, lectotype, or previously designated neotype, or all original material associated with a validly published name, is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise application of the name to a taxon”. Therefore an epitype, by definition, serves as the type used for taxonomic interpretation of a taxonomically ambiguous name thereby establishing the proper taxonomic application of that name. That is exactly what we stated in our article (see above). But what should be done if, after the designation of an epitype, it is demonstrated that the supported type or all original material associated with a name can “be critically identified for purposes of the precise application of the name to a taxon”? Probably in that case an epitype is no longer needed and can be simply cancelled, abandoned or disregarded? Unfortunately, that is not the case. It is supposed (or implied) in the Code (Art. 9.9) that the author who designates an epitype is certain that a type or all original material associated with a name “is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise application of the name to a taxon”. No requirements for any specific proof of that demonstrable ambiguity is currently prescribed in the Code (see, however, Rec. 9B), but Lendemer (l.c.: 631) recently proposed to require a statement of demonstrable ambiguity for epitype designation, which we consider a useful amendment. There are also some other proposals to amend the Code (see above). However, in our opinion, more certainty might be needed in the future, in comparison with the current requirement of demonstrable ambiguity and Rec. 9B, because to one researcher a taxonomic application of a certain type can be viewed as demonstrably ambiguous, while another author may consider the same specimen not taxonomically ambiguous at all. It still remains uncertain who should be the judges in that case. Here we propose an amendment to Art. 9.20 making more explicit the conditions under which the procedure of conservation should be undertaken. The thrust of our proposal is already implicit in the current wording of Art. 9.20 requiring conservation of a type under Art. 14 to resolve any conflict between an epitype and the type it supports. The purpose of conservation is to avoid disadvantageous nomenclatural changes and to retain those names that best serve stability of nomenclature (Art. 14.1 and 14.2). We propose that Art. 9.20 make it explicit that any conflict involving an epitype is to be resolved in whatever way best serves nomenclatural stability. “9.20. The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and F.5.4) an epitype must be followed; a different epitype may be designated only if the original epitype is lost or destroyed (see also Art. 9.17). A lectotype or neotype supported by an epitype may be superseded in accordance with Art. 9.19 or, in the case of a neotype, in accordance with Art. 9.18. If it can be shown that an epitype and the type it supports differ taxonomically and that neither Art. 9.18 nor 9.19 applies, the name may be proposed for conservation with a conserved type if this will best serve nomenclatural stability (Art. 14.9; see also Art. 57).” In our opinion, the procedure of epitypification, as it is currently prescribed in the Code and applied now, can be dangerous for nomenclatural stability. In particular, it can be used as a tool for nomenclatural and taxonomic “resurrection” of long-forgotten and/or taxonomically obscure names that are not in current use and may compete with currently accepted names. Many of such long-forgotten and obscure names should better remain in oblivion, for the sake of nomenclatural stability. We have already stated that “At least a new Recommendation not encouraging restoration of taxonomically obscure and nomenclaturally long-forgotten names through their epitypification should be considered, especially in cases when such resurrection affects well-established and widely accepted names” (Mosyakin & McNeill, l.c.: 136). Here we propose a new Recommendation in Rec. 9B. “9B.3. Neotypes and/or epitypes should not be designated for long-forgotten and/or taxonomically obscure names that are not in current use, especially if such names may compete in terms of priority with currently accepted names.” We are grateful to Nicholas J. Turland (Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) and John H. Wiersema (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) for their useful comments and editing.

“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.

TAXONVolume 72, Issue 5 p. 1153-1153 NOMENCLATURE COMMUNICATIONS (358–359) Two proposals clarifying some acts of typification John H. Wiersema, Corresponding Author John H. Wiersema [email protected] Department of Botany, NMNH - MRC 166, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C., 20013-7012 U.S.A. Address for correspondence: John H. Wiersema, [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorJohn McNeill, John McNeill Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR, Scotland, United Kingdom; and Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author John H. Wiersema, Corresponding Author John H. Wiersema [email protected] Department of Botany, NMNH - MRC 166, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C., 20013-7012 U.S.A. Address for correspondence: John H. Wiersema, [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorJohn McNeill, John McNeill Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR, Scotland, United Kingdom; and Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 27 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13036 First published as part of this issue. See online for details. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume72, Issue5October 2023Pages 1153-1153 RelatedInformation

TAXONVolume 72, Issue 5 p. 1171-1172 NOMENCLATURE COMMUNICATIONS (379–382) Proposals to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants to ensure that the names of algae and fungi are not subject to uncertainty on the applicability of the rules of any other Code and to further clarify Art. 45.1 John McNeill, Corresponding Author John McNeill [email protected] Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR, Scotland, United Kingdom; and Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada Address for correspondence: John McNeill, [email protected]Search for more papers by this author John McNeill, Corresponding Author John McNeill [email protected] Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR, Scotland, United Kingdom; and Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada Address for correspondence: John McNeill, [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 27 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13045 First published as part of this issue. See online for details. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume72, Issue5October 2023Pages 1171-1172 RelatedInformation

According to the rules in the current Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), a final decision regarding a request for a binding decision (i.e. “whether a descriptive statement satisfies the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a ‘description or diagnosis’”, Art. 38.4, or “whether names or their epithets are sufficiently alike to be confused”, Art. 53.4) is taken by an International Botanical Congress (IBC), with retroactive effect, and listed in the Appendices VI and VII of the Code, respectively. In other words, depending on the date of the request for a binding decision, it is usually necessary to wait from one to six years to have a final decision, with a retroactive effect. Therefore, if one wished to publish a replacement name (or name of a new taxon) for a name whose future use would be rendered impossible by either of these decisions, one technically might have to publish a superfluous, illegitimate name that would then be retroactively made legitimate at the next Congress. This will seem unsatisfactory to many, as will the alternative of waiting up to six years to correct the nomenclature. Since the Cambridge Rules of 1935 (Briquet, Int. Rules Bot. Nomencl., ed. 3. 1935), the implementation of a recommendation by the General Committee (GC) (or its predecessor) to conserve a name has been authorized pending its final approval by the IBC. In the Leningrad Code (Stafleu & al. in Regnum Veg. 97. 1978), the creation of a list of rejected names was authorized; because procedures for managing that process were not specified, initially the procedures used for conservation proposals were to be followed. In the following Sydney Code (Voss & al. in Regnum Veg. 111. 1983), Art. 15.1 specified that both retention and rejection of names were authorized following GC decisions, “subject to the decision of a later International Botanical Congress”. The scientific community using the Code retains the right to make the ultimate decision through the IBC (see Div. III Prov. 5.4), but since rejection of GC recommendations is expected to remain extremely rare, it is beneficial for scientists to be allowed to begin implementing those decisions as soon as possible, including by taking actions such as publishing a legitimate replacement name for a name that will no longer be usable. That rule has been consistently maintained since. Most recently, the relevant articles were changed in the Shenzhen Code to clarify that the GC recommendation “takes effect on the date of effective publication (Art. 29–31) of the General Committee's approval” (on or after 1 Jan 1954 in the case of conservation; see Art. 14.15 and 56.3). In a similar fashion, when the GC has approved a proposal for the suppression of a work under Art. 34.1, Art. 34.2 provides that “[…] suppression of that publication is authorized subject to the decision of a later International Botanical Congress (see also Art. 14.15 and 56.3) and takes retroactive effect”. In that case, because the effect of the decision is retroactive, the exact date upon which the GC approved the recommendation is irrelevant and need not be specified. We argue that it would be simpler and less confusing to have the same rule for all proposals (conservation, rejection and suppression of a work) and binding decisions, allowing the recommendations of the GC to be provisionally implemented as soon as they are available. There is no logical reason why the Code should not permit scientists to act upon the results of requests for binding decisions as promptly as they act in response to reported results of deliberations on proposals to conserve or reject names or to suppress a work. After recent internal discussions and votes, several members of the GC decided to publish these proposals to change the Code to bring the rules for binding decisions in line with the rules for conserved and rejected names and suppression of works. “38.4. When it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement satisfies the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diagnosis”, 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 General Committee recommendation as to whether or not the name concerned is validly published is to be treated as a binding decision subject to ratification by a later may then be put forward to an International Botanical Congress (see also Art. 14.15, 34.2, 53.4, and 56.3) and, if ratified, will become a binding decision with takes retroactive effect. These binding decisions are listed in App. VI.” “53.4. When it is doubtful whether names or their epithets are sufficiently alike to be confused, a request for a decision may be submitted to the General Committee, which will refer it for examination to the specialist committee(s) for the appropriate taxonomic group(s) (see Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10). A General Committee recommendation as to whether or not to treat the names concerned as homonyms is to be treated as a binding decision subject to ratification by a later may then be put forward to an International Botanical Congress (see also Art. 14.15, 34.2, 38.4, and 56.3) and, if ratified, will become a binding decision with takes retroactive effect. These binding decisions are listed in App. VII.” “5.4. When a vote to reject a General Committee recommendation achieves the required majority (Prov. 5.1(e) or (f)), that recommendation is cancelled and the matter is referred back to the General Committee. Retention or rejection of a name or, suppression of a work, or a binding decision on valid publication or homonymy is no longer authorized (Art. 14.15, 56.3, and 34.2, 38.4, and 53.4).”

Several Articles are included in the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) to regulate the effective publication of electronic material, which must be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in an online publication with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an International Standard Book Number (ISBN). These rules appear in Art. 29 and 30. However, one important aspect is not covered by these rules: how to proceed when effectively published electronic material is retracted? Does it then cease to be effectively published, rendering any included nomenclatural novelties no longer validly published? We consider that, despite the retraction, effectively published electronic material remains effectively published. Electronic material should be comparable to printed matter. Effectively published printed matter does not cease to be effectively published if the publisher issues a retraction. Put simply, effective publication is not reversible. To clarify this situation, we are proposing a new Note and Example to be added to Art. 30. These would probably be best placed after Art. 30.4, which rules that the content of a particular electronic publication must not be altered after it is effectively published and that any such alterations are not themselves effectively published. “Note n. Electronic material that has been effectively published remains effectively published even if retracted by its publisher.” “Ex. n. Bauhinia saksuwaniae Mattapha & al. was effectively published in a paper first placed online on 11 December 2013 as a PDF document accessible through the website of the Nordic Journal of Botany (ISSN 1756-1051, online, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1051.2013.00102.x). That paper was later declared as “retracted” by the publisher and has not appeared in the printed version of the journal (ISSN 0107-055X, print). Despite the retraction, the paper remains effectively published under Art. 29 and 30 and the species name remains validly published.”

The current definition of “illustration” in the Code (Art. 6.1 footnote, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) originated in a proposal to the Melbourne Congress (Perry in Taxon 59: 1909. 2010) that accompanied a proposal to make clear that illustrations in the protologue were original material; the definition was designed to ensure that only illustrations exhibiting the features of the taxon being named would qualify as original material. As the Rapporteurs put it in their Comments (McNeill & Turland in Taxon 60: 247–248. 2011) “Prop. A is an acceptable clarification of the meaning of illustration as generally used in the Code, ruling out habitat photographs and the like.” However, although that was the intent, even a very general view of the habitat is likely to show some feature of the taxon being illustrated, even if not in sufficient detail to be useful for purposes of identification. Accordingly, we propose to explicitly exclude habitat photographs. In addition, the current wording refers to the illustration of “an organism”, which might be thought to imply a single, whole organism. Because the definition relates primarily to illustrations eligible as types, we consider it clearer to adapt the wording of Art. 8.2 that defines a specimen and replace “an organism” with “a species or infraspecific taxon”. There are, however, two very exceptional circumstances in which the type of a generic name may be an illustration without indication of a species name; for this reason we propose appropriate cross-references. “Here and elsewhere in this Code, the term “illustration” designates a work of art or a photograph depicting a feature or features of an organism a species or infraspecific taxon (see also Art. 10.4 and 43.2), e.g. a drawing, a picture of a herbarium specimen, or a scanning electron micrograph, but not a habitat photograph.” We have identified one use of “illustration” in the Code that is not intended to be restricted in the manner set out in the footnote to Art. 6.1 – whether in its current form or in our proposed rewording. This is in the definition of “protologue” in the footnote to Art. 6.13. To resolve this we make the following proposal: “Protologue (from Greek πρώτος, protos, first; λόγος, logos, discourse): everything associated with a name at its valid publication, e.g. description, diagnosis, illustrations, habitat photographs (see Art. 6.1 footnote), references, synonymy, geographical data, citation of specimens, discussion, and comments.”

In order to improve the status definitions in Art. 6, Art. 6.11 was modified from the Melbourne Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) to the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). However, the improved wording of Art. 6.11 did not require the statement that a replacement name is “based on” an earlier name, which had appeared in the Melbourne version of Art. 6.11 and which continues to be explicitly stated in Art. 6.10 defining a new combination. Because Art. 14.4 states that a conserved name is conserved against “all combinations based on the rejected names”, this change means that it is no longer obvious that a conserved species name is conserved against a replacement name of which the replaced synonym is rejected. However, because a replacement name is indeed based on its replaced synonym, the rule in Art. 14.4 still applies but would benefit from rewording. To avoid any doubt, we propose the following amendment: “14.4. […] A conserved name of a species is conserved against all names listed as rejected, and against all new combinations and replacement names based on the rejected names.”

Article 60.8 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) requires standardization of the termination of specific or infraspecific epithets derived from personal names. However, it is not clear whether or not standardization in the termination of epithets derived from abbreviations of personal names is required. We therefore propose to establish that it is not required and, to clarify this situation, insert a qualification in Art. 60.8 followed by a new paragraph, a new Note and three new Examples. It should be emphasized that the proposal we are making deals with abbreviated personal names from which epithets are derived; the epithets themselves are unlikely to indicate any abbreviation, unlike the situation covered in Art. 60.14 to which our proposed new Note refers. In order to make the application of Art. 60.14 clearer, we are making a second proposal to clarify its wording, but the two proposals can be considered quite independently (see below). “60.8. The termination of specific or infraspecific epithets derived from personal names that are not already in Greek or Latin and do not possess a well-established latinized form (see Rec. 60C.1) is as follows (but see Art. 60.8bis for epithets derived from abbreviation of personal names):” “60.8bis. An epithet, or in the case of a compound epithet its final portion, formed from abbreviation of one or more personal names is considered to have been composed arbitrarily (Art. 23.2) and is not subject to modification, e.g. under the provisions of Art. 60.8.” “Note 4bis. If the epithet itself is indicated as being abbreviated, Art. 60.14 applies.” “Ex. 26bis. Silene karekirii Bocquet (in Candollea 22: 10. 1967), published as a replacement name for Lychnis sordida Kar. & Kir. (in Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 15: 170. 1842), is an arbitrarily formed epithet constructed by abbreviating the names of Karelin and Kirilov, authors of the replaced synonym, and the epithet is not to be corrected to ‘karekiriorum’ or ‘karelinikiriloviorum’.” “Ex. 26ter. Lepanthes carvii Archila (Lepanthes Guatemala: 99. 2001) was said to be “dedicated to the family of Carlos Villela especially LIC Jorge A Carlos who directed the photography in this investigation”. As a composite epithet apparently made up of “Car” from the Carlos family and the “V” from Villela, it is considered to be composed arbitrarily and is not to be modified in any way.” “Ex. 26quater. Telipogon ‘crisariasae’ Baquero & Iturralde (in Phytotaxa 564: 249. 2022), commemorating María Cristina Arias (female), in which the final portion of a compound epithet is not formed from an abbreviation, is correctable to Telipogon crisariasiae (see Art. 60.8(b)).” The present Art. 60.14 first appeared in the Melbourne Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) as a result of an amendment from the floor to a proposal (124) by Paul van Rijckevorsel (in Taxon 59: 656. 2010) on the deletion of a period (full stop) in a name; his basic proposal was accepted and now forms the second sentence of Art. 60.13. However, the Editorial Committee for the Melbourne Code decided that the amendment should be a separate provision and that is now Art. 60.14. The amendment, to add “Abbreviated names and epithets are to be expanded in conformity with botanical tradition” was proposed by Werner Greuter who explained that what was really important and should be in the Code was that the many abbreviations that had a period in the name when published, including some Linnaean ones, not be considered not validly published because there was a period in the name or epithet, but that they be expanded as had always been done (Flann & al. in PhytoKeys 41: 245. 2014). The explanation for the amendment that has become Art. 60.14 makes it clear that what must be expanded in conformity with nomenclatural tradition is not any name or epithet that might be thought to be abbreviated, but those that give indication of abbreviation, e.g. by the use of a period (full stop) or other symbol. For this reason, we propose that Art. 60.14 be amended to reflect this. “60.14. Abbreviated names and Names or epithets indicated as abbreviated are to be expanded in conformity with nomenclatural tradition (see also Art. 23 *Ex. 23 and Rec. 60C.4(d)).” It might be thought that this is already covered by the provision in Art. 60.13 by which a full stop (period) in an epithet is treated as an error to be corrected by expansion or, when nomenclatural tradition does not support expansion (Art. 60.14), deletion of the full stop. However, as other indications of abbreviation are possible and as this provision provides a link to a voted example, we are not proposing a merger with Art. 60.13, although it is something that a future Editorial Committee might want to consider.

This nomenclatural analysis of the genus name Rhodophyllis Kützing (1847: 23) ( Cystocloniaceae, Rhodophyta ) was initiated after inadvertent inaccuracies/oversights/ shortcomings were detected in several older analyses (e.g., Papenfuss 1950; Silva 1952) predating the current International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) [ICN (Turland et al . 2018)]. This study parallels a similar one (Woelkerling & al. 2020) of species names historically linked at some stage to Rhodophyllis bifida (J.V. Lamouroux) Kützing [as ‘ Rh. bifida Kg.’ in Kützing (1847: 23)], the species name whose nomenclatural type (ICN Art. 10.1) typifies Rhodophyllis. Our analysis, including nomenclatural terminology, is based on the current ICN (Turland & al. 2018). Herbarium abbreviations are those in the online database Index Herbariorum (http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih/).

The purpose of this set of proposals is to achieve a clearer and more concise Art. 40, which deals with the requirement to indicate a type. Over several editions of the Code, this Article has become in places repetitive (Art. 40.2 and the second sentence of 40.3), tortuously worded (Art. 40.4 and 40.5), too implicit (e.g. “For the purpose of Art. 40.1”), and with important rules lacking prominence (the second sentence of 40.3). There is also a serious conflict between Art. 40.6 and Art. 9.10. Article 40.6 requires indication of the type of a name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below published on or after 1 January 1990 to include one of the words “typus”, “holotypus”, or its abbreviation or equivalent. Without use of these terms, such a name cannot be validly published. However, Art. 9.10 rules that an incorrectly used term denoting a type is treated as an error to be corrected, hence the misuse of “lectotype” or “neotype” can be corrected to “holotype”, thereby satisfying Art. 40.6. But Art. 9 Note 6 claims that a misused term may be corrected to holotype only if Art. 40.6 does not apply. Perhaps the reasoning is that failure to satisfy Art. 40.6 results in a “name” that is not validly published (a designation), with no status under the Code and therefore no type to correct under Art. 9.10. On the other hand, if Art. 9.10 is invoked to correct “lectotype” to “holotype”, Art. 40.6 is satisfied and the name is validly published. This is the conflict, and Art. 9 Note 6 is introducing a new provision—as would constitute an Article—in order to allow Art. 40.6 to prevail. (“Notes have binding effect but, unlike Articles, do not introduce any new provision or concept”, Preface of the Shenzhen Code, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159: xxiv. 2018.) The phrase referring to Art. 40.6 was added to Art. 9 Note 6 by a proposal referred to the Editorial Committee at the Melbourne Congress of 2011 (Art. 9 Prop. X; see McNeill & Turland in Taxon 60: 251. 2011; Flann & al. in PhytoKeys 41: 52. 2014), but the Rapporteurs, Nomenclature Section, and Editorial Committee did not foresee the problem described here. There are names that are currently in “limbo” under the current Shenzhen Code, i.e. it is uncertain whether or not they are validly published. It would not serve nomenclatural stability to penalize authors and disallow valid publication of such names merely because an incorrect term was used to denote the type. This would be bureaucracy for its own sake, particularly because in many cases the authors understandably believed that they were typifying already validly published names. Instead, the conflict in the Code should be removed so that such names can be validly published without any doubt. Accordingly, in the present set of proposals, Art. 40.6 is amended with consequential adjustment to Art. 9 Note 6. Firstly, we present a clean version of what the amended Article 40 would look like if all of the following proposals were accepted. The order of the Articles is based on the dates on which they take effect. Article 40.1 is unchanged: 40.1. Publication on or after 1 January 1958 of the name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below is valid only when the type of the name is indicated (see Art. 7–10; but see Art. H.9 Note 1 for the names of certain hybrids). The first sentence of Art. 40.3 is unchanged and becomes Art. 40.2: 40.2. For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, 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, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type (see also Art. 10.8; but see Art. 40.4). Article 40.2 and the second sentence of 40.3 are combined, becoming Art. 40.3, and the date is added to make it explicit that the rule does not apply to names published before 1958 (cf. Art. 9.1bis in Prop. 008 by Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 626–627. 2020); minor adjustments are made to Note 1, Notes 2 and 3 remain unchanged, and Notes 1 and 2 are transposed: 40.3. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 1958, mention of a single specimen, a single gathering or a part thereof, or an illustration is acceptable as indication of the type, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type (but see Art. 40.4) or if it consists of two or more specimens as defined in Art. 8 (see also Art. 40.5). Note 1. Mere citation of a locality does not constitute mention of a single specimen or gathering. Concrete reference to some detail relating to the actual type is required, such as the collector's name, collecting number or date, or unique specimen identifier. Note 2. When the type is indicated by mention of an entire gathering, or a part thereof, consisting of more than one specimen, those specimens are syntypes (see Art. 9.6). Note 3. Cultures of algae and fungi preserved in a metabolically inactive state are acceptable as types (Art. 8.4; see also Rec. 8B and Art. 40.7). Article. 40.6 becomes Art. 40.4; a new second sentence is added to resolve conflict with Art. 9.10; as editorial consequences Art. 9 Note 6 is amended and Art. 40 Ex. 5 is amended or deleted: 40.4. For the name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below published on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the words “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language (see also Rec. 40A.1 and 40A.4). This requirement is also satisfied by use of one of the words “lectotypus” or “neotypus” (or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language), which are to be treated as errors to be corrected under Art. 9.10. In the case of the name of a monotypic (as defined in Art. 38.6) new genus or subdivision of a genus with the simultaneously published name of a new species, indication of the type of the species name is sufficient. Article 40.7 is unchanged and becomes Art. 40.5; Note 4 is unchanged: 40.5. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 1990 of which the type is a specimen or unpublished illustration, the single herbarium, collection, or institution in which the type is conserved must be specified (see also Rec. 40A.5 and 40A.6). Note 4. Specification of the herbarium, collection, or institution may be made in an abbreviated form, e.g. as given in Index Herbariorum (http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih/) or in the World directory of collections of cultures of microorganisms. Articles 40.4 and 40.5 are combined and rewritten, becoming Art. 40.6: 40.6. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 2007, the type indicated in accordance with Art. 40 must always be a specimen (for fossils see also Art. 8.5); an exception is permitted for names of non-fossil microscopic algae and non-fossil microfungi, for which the type may be an effectively published illustration if there are technical difficulties of specimen preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name. Article 40.8 is unchanged and becomes Art. 40.7: 40.7. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 2019 of which the type is a culture, the protologue must include a statement that the culture is preserved in a metabolically inactive state. To achieve the revised Art. 40, as given above, the following three proposals are needed. The proposals all stand independently; none is contingent upon another being accepted or rejected. Editorially renumber the first Article as Art. 40.2, the second one as Art. 40.3; no changes are proposed in the new Art. 40.2 except editorially replace Art. “40.6” with “40.4” in the final cross-reference. “40.2. For the name of a new genus or subdivision of a genus, 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, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type, is acceptable as indication of the type (see also Art. 10.8; but see Art. 40.4).” “40.3. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 1958, mention of a single specimen, a single gathering or a part thereof, or an illustration is acceptable as indication of the type, even if that element is not explicitly designated as type (but see Art. 40.4) or if it consists of two or more specimens as defined in Art. 8 (see also Art. 40.5).” Editorially replace “reference to” with “mention of” in Note 1, to accord with the new Art. 40.3, and replace “that consists” with “consisting”; editorially transpose Notes 1 and 2; editorially replace Art. “40.8” with “40.7” in the final cross-reference of Note 3. Editorially renumber Art. 40.6 as Art. 40.4 (and Art. 40.7 as Art. 40.5); editorially add “see also Art. 40.4” to the end of Art. 9.10; editorially amend or delete Art. 40 Ex. 5. “40.4. For the name of a new taxon at the rank of genus or below published on or after 1 January 1990, indication of the type must include one of the words “typus” or “holotypus”, or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language (see also Rec. 40A.1 and 40A.4). This requirement is also satisfied by use of one of the words “lectotypus” or “neotypus” (or its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language), which are to be treated as errors to be corrected under Art. 9.10. But in In the case of the name of a monotypic (as defined in Art. 38.6) new genus or subdivision of a genus with the simultaneously published name of a new species, indication of the type of the species name is sufficient.” [Art. 9] “Note 6. A misused term may be corrected to lectotype, neotype, or epitype only if the requirements of Art. 7.11 (for correction to lectotype, neotype, and epitype) are met and Art. 40.6 (for correction to holotype) does not apply , in particular inclusion of the phrase “designated here” for typifications on or after 1 January 2001.” Editorially renumber the combined Article as Art. 40.6. “40.6. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon published on or after 1 January 2007, the type indicated in accordance with Art. 40 must always be a specimen (for fossils see also Art. 8.5); an exception is permitted for names of non-fossil microscopic algae and non-fossil microfungi, for which the type may be an effectively published illustration if there are technical difficulties of specimen preservation or if it is impossible to preserve a specimen that would show the features attributed to the taxon by the author of the name.” Editorially renumber Art. 40.8 as Art. 40.7. We thank William Woelkerling (La Trobe University) for drawing attention to the contradiction between Art. 33 Ex. 3 and Art. 40 Ex. 5 and thereby the conflict between Art. 40.6 and Art. 9.10. We also thank Heather Lindon (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) for querying the IPNI database and providing the names listed in the Appendix. Aeonium ×bravoanum Bramwell & G. D. Rowley ex Bañares in Vieraea 43: 190. 2015. Cistanthe subsect. Thyrsoideae Hershk. in Phytoneuron 2019-27: 58. 2019. Cistanthe subspeciosa Hershk. in Phytoneuron 2019-27: 56. 2019. Corunastylis sect. Extensae D. L. Jones & M. A. Clem. in Austral. Orchid Rev. 83: 57. 2018, ‘Extensa’. Corunastylis sect. Glanduliferae D. L. Jones & M. A. Clem. in Austral. Orchid Rev. 83: 57. 2018, ‘Glandulifera’. Corunastylis sect. Pachychilae D. L. Jones & M. A. Clem. in Austral. Orchid Rev. 83: 56. 2018, ‘Pachychila’. Cotoneaster uzbezicus Grevtsova ex J. Fryer & B. Hylmö, Cotoneasters Compreh. Guide: 78. 2009. Dendrobium sibuyanense Lubag-Arquiza & al. in Orchid Digest 70: 174. 2006 [see Art. 40 Ex. 5]. Gymnocalycium friedrichii var. angustostriatum Pazout ex Milt in Cactaceae etc. 26(2): 61. 2016. Gymnocalycium valnicekianum var. bicolor H. Till & Amerh. in Gymnocalycium 15: 452. 2002. Magnolia champacifolia Dandy ex Gagnep. in Adansonia 37: 14. 2015. Persea himalayaensis M. Gangop. & V. S. Kumar in Nelumbo 51: 254. 2009. Thingia Hershk. in Phytoneuron 2019-27: 61. 2019. Typha sect. Domingenses Krasnova in Biol. Vnutrenn. Vod 3: 26. 2004 [validation or later isonym: Typha sect. Domingenses Krasnova in Skvortsovia 4: 40. 2018].