(201-202) Proposals regarding the definition of original material (Article 9.4)

From a conceptual standpoint, the definition of “original material” in Art. 9.4 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) is straightforward. Yet the actual language is more difficult than necessary and can be simplified without any material substantive changes. Cited illustrations are part of the protologue (Art. 9 Note 7) and, as implied by Art. 9 Ex. 11, it is widely accepted that cited illustrations are always original material. However, while cited specimens are always original material under Art. 9.4(c), a cited illustration is original material only if the author has access to it, which may not always be the case. While it is certainly possible that an author cited an illustration in an earlier publication without having access to the illustration, this possibility seems to be ignored. It is preferable to state that all cited illustrations are original material. Because all cited specimens are original material, this proposal also makes it clear that they do not need to meet the requirements of Art. 9.4(a). “9.4. For the purposes of this Code, original material comprises the following elements: (a) those uncited specimens and uncited illustrations (both unpublished and published prior to publication of the protologue) that the author associated with the taxon, and that were available to the author prior to, or at the time of, preparation of the description, diagnosis, or illustration with analysis (Art. 38.7 and 38.8) validating the name; (b) any illustrations published as part of, or cited in, the protologue; (c) the holotype and those specimens which, even if not seen by the author of the description or diagnosis validating the name, were indicated as types (syntypes or paratypes) of the name at its valid publication; and (d) the isotypes or isosyntypes1 of the name irrespective of whether such specimens were seen by either the author of the validating description or diagnosis or the author of the name (but see Art. 7.8, 7.9, and F.3.9).” The next proposal is not intended to be substantive, and instead hopes to make Art. 9.4 both easier to read and more consistent with the other provisions of Art. 9. First, all isotypes, syntypes, paratypes and isosyntypes are original material. Because Art. 9.4 references those terms, it cannot be understood without also understanding the definitions of those terms in Art. 9.5–9.7. Once those terms are understood, it appears that some of the language in Art. 9.4 is unnecessary and may well be contradictory. For example, Art. 9.4(c) includes as original material “those specimens which, even if not seen by the author of the description or diagnosis validating the name, were indicated as types (syntypes or paratypes) of the name at its valid publication” (emphasis added). The “indicated as types” phrase incorrectly implies that the failure to use the word “type”, “syntype” or “paratype” in the protologue precludes a specimen cited in the protologue from qualifying as original material, or that something in addition to mere citation is required to “indicate” the specimen as a type. It also incorrectly implies that syntypes and paratypes are types, which is contrary to the definition of that term in Art. 8.1. Second, the various kinds of types listed in Art. 9.4(c) and (d) do not contain a restriction that they be seen by the author of the name or the author of the description or diagnosis. This language was added as part of the Tokyo Code (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 131. 1994) because the prior Berlin Code (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 118. 1988) implied that an author needed to see a specimen for it to be original material. A Note may be desirable to make this clear. Third, the order of clauses (a)–(d) in Art. 9.4 is inconsistent with the order of Art. 9.12, which provides priority rules for purposes of designating a lectotype. This inconsistency requires readers to take more time than needed to understand the interaction of these two provisions. The proposal below reorders Art. 9.4 to generally (but not completely) conform with the order in Art. 9.12. In addition, because Art. 9.12 provides that isotypes have priority over syntypes and paratypes, the reference to isotypes is moved after holotypes. Finally, the introductory clause “For purposes of this Code” appears unnecessary, if not confusing. “9.4. Original material comprises the following elements: (a) the holotype and its isotypes; (b) other specimens cited in the protologue of the name (i.e. syntypes and paratypes) and isosyntypes1; (c) any illustrations published as part of the protologue; and (d) those specimens and illustrations (both unpublished and published prior to publication of the protologue) that the author associated with the taxon, and that were available to the author prior to, or at the time of, preparation of the description, diagnosis, or illustration with analysis (Art. 38.7 and 38.8) validating the name (but see Art. 7.8, 7.9, and F.3.9).” “Note n. Original material under Art. 9.4(a) or (b) need not be seen by either the author of the validating description or diagnosis or the author of the name.” I thank Nicholas J. Turland and John H. Wiersema for their comments and revisions, which were most helpful in completing this set of proposals.