Botanical Code Article 71

[Alan Whittemore]

On Wed, 15 Mar 1995, Bentivenga, Stephen P wrote:

> Hello Taxacomers -
>
> I am in the process of writing a monograph of the genus Gigaspora, and
> I have run into an interesting problem.  I plan to reject one species
> on the basis that it was described from heavily parasitized material
> which was altered to the point that taxonomic characters were not
> observable.
>
> Older versions of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature
> had an article to deal with this - Article 71 which allowed rejection
> of a name if it was based on a "monstrosity".  In 1975, the Leningrad
> Conress deleted this article.
>
> Does anyone know of another article or recommendation which deals with
> this issue?  Any suggestions would be appreciated.
>
> Steve Bentivenga
> West Virginia University

Dear Steve,
        I think you have two options under the Tokyo Code:

1.  Names may still be rejected, but it is no longer an informal process.
You must propose the name for addition to the list of rejected names, and
it will be reviewed by committee.  The procedure for this is given in
Article 56.

2.  The inadequate holotype may be supported by designating an epitype.
This is a supplemental type specimen, to be used to clarify the
application of a name when the original material is unidentifiable for any
reason.  The epitype must be consistent with the characters of the
holotype, so far as can be determined, and of course it should be clearly
identifiable.  The name will then be fixed to the species that the epitype
belongs to.
        The epitype is new in the Tokyo Code; it is defined in Article
9.7.  An epitype is designated in the same manner as any other type,
subject to the conditions mentioned in Art. 9.7.