7.1. The application of names of taxa of the rank of family or below is determined by means of nomenclatural types (types of names of taxa). The application of names of taxa in the higher ranks is also determined by means of types when the names are ultimately based on generic names (see Art. 10.7).

7.2. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether as a correct name or as a synonym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon.

7.3. A new name published as an avowed substitute (nomen novum) for an older name is typified by the type of the older name (see Art. 33.2; but see Art. 33 Note 2).

Ex. 1. Myrcia lucida McVaugh (1969) was published as a nomen novum for M. laevis O. Berg (1862), an illegitimate homonym of M. laevis G. Don (1832). The type of M. lucida is therefore the type of M. laevis O. Berg (non G. Don), namely, Spruce 3502.

7.4. A new name formed from a previously published legitimate name (stat. nov., comb. nov.) is, in all circumstances, typified by the type of the basionym, even though it may have been applied erroneously to a taxon now considered not to include that type (but see Art. 48.1 and 59.6).

Ex. 2. Pinus mertensiana Bong. was transferred to the genus Tsuga by Carriere, who, however, as is evident from his description, erroneously applied the new combination T. mertensiana to another species of Tsuga, namely T. heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. The combination Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carriere must not be applied to T. heterophylla but must be retained for P. mertensiana when that species is placed in Tsuga; the citation in parentheses (under Art. 49) of the name of the original author, Bongard, indicates the type of the name.

Ex. 3. Iridaea splendens (Setch. & N. L. Gardner) Papenf., I. cordata var. splendens (Setch. & N. L. Gardner) I. A. Abbott (in Syesis 4: 55. 1972), and Gigartina cordata var. splendens (Setch. & N. L. Gardner) D. H. Kim (in Nova Hedwigia 27: 40. 1976) all have the same type as their basionym, Iridophycus splendens Setch. & N. L. Gardner, namely, Gardner 7781 (UC No. 539565).

7.5. A name which, under Art. 52, was illegitimate when published is either automatically typified by the type of the name which ought to have been adopted under the rules, or by a different type designated or definitely indicated by the author of the illegitimate name. Automatic typification does not apply to names sanctioned under Art. 15.

7.6. The type of an autonym is the same as that of the name from which it is derived.

7.7. A name validly published by reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis (Art. 32.1(c)) is to be typified by an element selected from the context of the validating description or diagnosis, unless the validating author has definitely designated a different type (but see Art. 10.2). However, the type of a name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomenclatural starting-point later than 1753 (see Art. 13.1) is to be determined in accordance with the indication or descriptive and other matter accompanying its valid publication (see 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45).

Ex. 4. Since the name Adenanthera bicolor Moon (1824) is validated solely by reference to Rumphius (Herb. Amboin. 3: t. 112. 1743), the type of the name, in the absence of the specimen from which it was figured, is the illustration referred to. It is not the specimen, at Kew, collected by Moon and labelled "Adenanthera bicolor", since Moon did not definitely designate the latter as the type.

Ex. 5. Echium lycopsis L. (Fl. Angl.: 12. 1754) was published without a description or diagnosis but with reference to Ray (Syn. Meth. Stirp. Brit., ed. 3: 227. 1724), in which a "Lycopsis" species was discussed with no description or diagnosis but with citation of earlier references, including Bauhin (Pinax: 255. 1623). The accepted validating description of E. lycopsis is that of Bauhin, and the type must be chosen from the context of his work. Consequently the Sherard specimen in the Morison herbarium (OXF), selected by Klotz (in Wiss. Z. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg Math.-Naturwiss. Reihe 9: 375-376. 1960), although probably consulted by Ray, is not eligible as type. The first acceptable choice is that of the illustration, cited by both Ray and Bauhin, of "Echii altera species" in Dodonaeus (Stirp. Hist. Pempt.: 620. 1583), suggested by Gibbs (in Lagascalia 1: 60-61. 1971) and formally made by Stearn (in Ray Soc. Publ. 148, Introd.: 65. 1973).

7.8. Typification of names adopted in one of the works specified in Art. 13.1(d), and thereby sanctioned (Art. 15), may be effected in the light of anything associated with the name in that work.

7.9. The typification of names of form-genera of plant fossils (Art. 3.3), of fungal anamorphs (Art. 59), and of any other analogous genera or lower taxa does not differ from that indicated above.

Note 1. See also Art. 59 for details regarding typification of names in certain pleomorphic fungi.

7.10. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.13 and 10.5), designation of a type is achieved only by effective publication (Art. 29, 30, 31).

7.11. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.13 and 10.5), designation of a type is achieved only if the type is definitely accepted as such by the typifying author, and if the type element is clearly indicated by direct citation including the term "type" or an equivalent.

Ex. 6. Chlorosarcina Gerneck (1907) originally comprised two species, C. minor and C. elegans. Vischer (1933) transferred the former to Chlorosphaera G. A. Klebs and retained the latter in Chlorosarcina. He did not, however, use the term "type" or an equivalent, so that his action does not constitute typification of Chlorosarcina. The first to designate a type, as "LT.", was Starr (in ING Card No. 16528, Nov 1962), who selected Chlorosarcina elegans.

*Ex. 7. The phrase "standard species" as used by Hitchcock & Green (in Anon., Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists: 110-199. 1929) is now treated as equivalent to "type", and hence type designations in this work are acceptable.

7A.1. It is strongly recommended that the material on which the name of a taxon is based, especially the holotype, be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collection with a policy of giving bona fide botanists open access to deposited material, and that it be scrupulously conserved.

8.1. The type of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is a single specimen or illustration except in the following case: for small herbaceous plants and for most non-vascular plants, the type may consist of more than one individual, which ought to be conserved permanently on one herbarium sheet or in one equivalent preparation (e.g., box, packet, jar, microscope slide).

8.2. Type specimens of names of taxa must be preserved permanently and cannot be living plants or cultures.

Ex. 1. The strain CBS 7351, given as the type of the name Candida populi Hagler & al. (in Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 39: 98. 1989), is acceptable as a nomenclatural type as it is permanently preserved in a metabolically inactive state by lyophilization (see also Rec. 8B.2).

8.3. If it is impossible to preserve a specimen as the type of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon of non-fossil plants, or if such a name is without a type specimen, the type may be an illustration.

8.4. The type of the name of a taxon of fossil plants of the rank of species or below is the specimen whose figure either accompanies or is cited in the valid publication of the name (see Art. 38). If figures of more than one specimen were given or cited when the name was validly published, one of those speci-mens must be chosen as the type.

8.5. One whole specimen used in establishing a taxon of fossil plants is to be considered the nomenclatural type.

8A.1. When a holotype, a lectotype or a neotype is an illustration (see Art. 8.3), the specimen or specimens upon which that illustration is based should be used to help determine the application of the name.

8A.2. When it is impossible to preserve a type specimen and an illustration is designated as the type of the name of a new taxon (see Art. 8.3), the collection data of the illustrated material should be given (see also Rec. 32D.2).

8A.3. If the type specimen of a name of a fossil plant is cut into pieces (sections of fossil wood, pieces of coal-ball plants, etc.), all parts originally used in establishing the diagnosis ought to be clearly marked.

8B.1. Whenever practicable a living culture should be prepared from the holotype material of the name of a newly described taxon of fungi or algae and deposited in at least two institutional culture or genetic resource collections. (Such action does not obviate the requirement for a holotype specimen under Art. 8.2.)

8B.2. In cases where the nomenclatural type is a culture permanently preserved in a metabolically inactive state (see Art. 8 Ex. 1), any living isolates obtained from that should be referred to as "ex-type" (ex typo), "ex-holotype" (ex holotypo), "ex-isotype" (ex isotypo), etc., in order to make it clear they are derived from the type but are not themselves the nomenclatural type.

9.1. A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is the one specimen or illustration used by the author, or designated by the author as the nomenclatural type. As long as a holotype is extant, it fixes the application of the name concerned (see also Art. 10).

Note 1. Any designation made by the original author, if definitely expressed at the time of the original publication of the name of the taxon, is final (but see Art. 9.9). If the author included only one element, that one must be accepted as the holotype. If a new name is based on a previously published description or diagnosis of the taxon, the same considerations apply to material included by the earlier author (see Art. 7.7 and 7.8).

9.2. A lectotype is a specimen or illustration (see Art. 8.3) designated as the nomenclatural type, in conformity with Art. 9.9, when no holotype was indicated at the time of publication, when the holotype is found to belong to more than one taxon, or as long as it is missing.

9.3. An isotype is any duplicate1 of the holotype; it is always a specimen.

9.4. A syntype is any one of two or more specimens cited in the protologue when no holotype was designated, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated as types.

9.5. A paratype is a specimen cited in the protologue that is neither the holotype nor an isotype, nor one of the syntypes if two or more specimens were simultaneously designated as types.

Ex. 1. The holotype of the name Rheedia kappleri Eyma, which applies to a polygamous species, is a male specimen collected by Kappler (593a in U). The author designated a hermaphroditic specimen collected by the Forestry Service of Surinam as a paratype (B. W. 1618 in U).

Note 2. In most cases in which no holotype was designated there will also be no paratypes, since all the cited specimens will be syntypes. However, when an author designated two or more specimens as types (Art. 9.4), any remaining cited specimens are paratypes and not syntypes.

9.6. A neotype is a specimen or illustration (see Art. 8.3) selected to serve as nomenclatural type as long as all of the material on which the name of the taxon was based is missing (see also Art. 9.11).

9.7. An epitype is a specimen or illustration selected to serve as an interpret-ative type 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 of a taxon. When an epitype is designated, the holotype, lectotype or neotype that the epitype supports must be explicitly cited.

9.8. The use of a term defined in the Code (Art. 9.1-9.7) as denoting a type, in a sense other than that in which it is so defined, is treated as an error to be corrected (for example, the use of the term lectotype to denote what is in fact a neotype).

Ex. 2. Borssum Waalkes (in Blumea 14: 198. 1966) cited Herb. Linnaeus No. 866.7 (LINN) as the holotype of Sida retusa L. (1763). The term is incorrectly used because illustrations in Plukenet (Phytographia: t. 9, f. 2. 1691) and Rumphius (Herb. Amboin. 6: t. 19. 1750) were cited by Linnaeus in the protologue of S. retusa. Since all three elements are original material (Art. 9.9, footnote), Borssum Waalkes's use of holotype is an error to be corrected to lectotype.

9.9. If no holotype was indicated by the author of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon, or when the holotype has been lost or destroyed, or when the material designated as type is found to belong to more than one taxon, a lectotype or, if permissible (Art. 9.6), a neotype as a substitute for it may be designated (Art. 7.10 and 7.11). A lectotype always takes precedence over a neotype, except as provided by Art. 9.11. An isotype, if such exists, must be chosen as the lectotype. If no isotype exists, the lectotype must be chosen from among the syntypes, if such exist. If neither an isotype nor a syntype nor an isosyntype (duplicate of syntype) nor any other part of the original material is extant, a neotype may be selected.

Note 3. When two or more specimens have been designated as types by the author of a name (e.g. male and female, flowering and fruiting, etc.), the lectotype must be chosen from among them (see Art. 9.4).

9.10. When a type specimen (herbarium sheet or equivalent preparation) contains parts belonging to more than one taxon (see Art. 9.9), the name must remain attached to that part which corresponds most nearly with the original description or diagnosis.

Ex. 3. The type of the name Tillandsia bryoides Griseb. ex Baker (1878) is Lorentz 128 in BM; this, however, proved to be a mixture. Smith (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 70: 192. 1935) acted in accordance with this rule in designating one part of Lorentz's gathering as the lectotype.

9.11. When a holotype or a previously designated lectotype has been lost or destroyed and it can be shown that all the other original material differs taxonomically from the destroyed type, a neotype may be selected to preserve the usage established by the previous typification (see also Art. 9.12).

9.12. A neotype selected under Art. 9.11 may be superseded if it can be shown to differ taxonomically from the holotype or lectotype that it replaced.

9.13. The author who first designates a lectotype or a neotype must be followed, but his choice is superseded if (a) the holotype or, in the case of a neotype, any of the original material is rediscovered; it may also be superseded if (b) it can be shown that it is in serious conflict with the protologue and another element is available which is not in conflict with the protologue, or (c) that it is contrary to Art. 9.10.

9.14. On or after 1 January 1990, lectotypification or neotypification of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon by a specimen or unpublished illustration (see Art. 8.3) is not effected unless the herbarium or institution in which the type is conserved is specified.

9A.1. Typification of names for which no holotype was designated should only be carried out with an understanding of the author's method of working; in particular it should be realized that some of the material used by the author in describing the taxon may not be in the author's own herbarium or may not even have survived, and conversely, that not all the material surviving in the author's herbarium was necessarily used in describing the taxon.

9A.2. Designation of a lectotype should be undertaken only in the light of an understanding of the group concerned. In choosing a lectotype, all aspects of the protologue should be considered as a basic guide. Mechanical methods, such as the automatic selection of the first species or specimen cited or of a specimen collected by the person after whom a species is named, should be avoided as unscientific and productive of possible future confusion and further changes.

9A.3. In choosing a lectotype, any indication of intent by the author of a name should be given preference unless such indication is contrary to the protologue. Such indications are manuscript notes, annotations on herbarium sheets, recognizable figures, and epithets such as typicus, genuinus, etc.

9A.4. When a single collection is cited in the protologue, but a particular institution housing this is not designated, it should be assumed that the specimen housed in the institution where the author is known to have worked is the holotype, unless there is evidence that he used further material of the same collection.

9A.5. When two or more heterogeneous elements were included in or cited with the original description or diagnosis, the lectotype should be so selected as to preserve current usage. In particular, if another author has already segregated one or more elements as other taxa, the residue or part of it should be designated as the lectotype provided that this element is not in conflict with the original description or diagnosis (see Art. 9.13).

9A.6. For the name of a fossil species, the lectotype, when one is needed, should, if possible, be a specimen illustrated at the time of the valid publication of the name (see Art. 8.4).

9B.1. In selecting a neotype, particular care and critical knowledge should be exercised because the reviewer usually has no guide except personal judgement as to what best fits the protologue, and if this selection proves to be faulty, it will inevitably result in further change.

10.1. The type of a name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus is the type of a name of a species (except as provided by Art. 10.4). For purposes of designation or citation of a type, the species name alone suffices, i.e., it is considered as the full equivalent of its type.

Note 1. Terms such as "holotype", "syntype", and "lectotype", as presently defined in Art. 9, although not applicable, strictly speaking, to the types of names in ranks higher than species, are so used by analogy.

10.2. If in the protologue of the name of a genus or of any subdivision of a genus the holotype or lectotype of one or more previously or simultaneously published species name(s) is definitely included (see Art. 10.3), the type must be chosen (Art. 7.10 and 7.11) from among these types unless the type was indicated (Art. 22.5, 22.6, and 37.2) or designated by the author of the name. If no type of a previously or simultaneously published species name was definitely included, a type must be otherwise chosen, 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 the protologue.

Ex. 1. The genus Anacyclus, as originally circumscribed by Linnaeus (1753), comprised three validly named species. Cassini (in Cuvier, Dict. Sci. Nat. 34: 104. 1825) designated Anthemis valentina L. (1753) as type of Anacyclus, but this was not an original element of the genus. Green (in Anon., Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists: 182. 1929) designated Anacyclus valentinus L. (1753), "the only one of the three original species still retained in the genus", as the "standard species" (see Art. 7 Ex. 7), and her choice must be followed (Art. 10.5). Humphries (in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Bot. 7: 109. 1979) designated a specimen in the Clifford Herbarium (BM) as lectotype of Anacyclus valentinus, and that specimen thereby became the ultimate type of the generic name.

Ex. 2. Castanella Spruce ex Benth. & Hook. f. (1862) was described on the basis of a single specimen and without mention of a species name. Swart (in ING Card No. 2143. 1957) was the first to designate a type (as "T."): C. granatensis Triana & Planch. (1862), based on a Linden collection. As long as the Spruce specimen is considered to be conspecific with Linden's collection Swart's type designation cannot be superseded, even though the Spruce specimen became the type of Paullinia paullinioides Radlk. (1896), because the latter is not a "previously or simultaneously published species name".

10.3. For the purposes of Art. 10.2, definite inclusion of the type of a name of a species is effected by citation of, or reference (direct or indirect) to, a validly published name, whether accepted or synonymized by the author, or by citation of the holotype or lectotype of a previously or simultaneously published name of a species.

Ex. 3. The protologue of Elodes Adans. (1763) included references to "Elodes" of Clusius (1601), "Hypericum" of Tournefort (1700), and Hypericum aegypticum L. (1753). The latter is the only reference to a validly published name of a species, and neither of the other elements is the type of a name of a species. The type of H. aegypticum is therefore the type of Elodes, even though subsequent authors designated H. elodes L. (1759) as the type (see Robson in Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bot. 5: 305, 336. 1977).

10.4. By and only by conservation (Art. 14.9), the type of a name of a genus may be a specimen or illustration, preferably used by the author in the preparation of the protologue, other than the type of a name of an included species.

Ex. 4. Physconia Poelt has been conserved with the specimen "'Lichen pulverulentus', Germania, Lipsia in Tilia, 1767, Schreber (M)" as the type.

Note 2. If the element designated under Art. 10.4 is the type of a species name, that name may be cited as the type of the generic name. If the element is not the type of a species name, a parenthetical reference to the correct name of the type element may be added.

10.5. The author who first designates a type of a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus must be followed, but the choice may be superseded if (a) it can be shown that it is in serious conflict with the protologue and another element is available which is not in conflict with the protologue, or (b) that it was based on a largely mechanical method of selection.

Ex. 5. Fink (in Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 14(1): 2. 1910) specified that he was "stating the types of the genera according to the 'first species' rule". His type designations may therefore be superseded.

*Ex. 6. Authors following the American code of botanical nomenclature, Canon 15 (in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 34: 172. 1907), designated as the type "the first binomial species in order" eligible under certain provisions. This method of selection is to be considered as largely mechanical. Thus the first type designation for Delphinium L., by Britton (in Britton & Brown, Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed. 2, 2: 93. 1913), who followed the American code and chose D. consolida L., has been superseded under Art. 10.5(b) by the designation of D. peregrinum L. by Green (in Anon., Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists: 162. 1929). The unicarpellate D. consolida could not have been superseded as type by the tricarpellate D. peregrinum under Art. 10.5(a), however, because it is not in serious conflict with the generic protologue, which specifies "germina tria vel unum", the assignment of the genus to "Polyandria Trigynia" by Linnaeus notwithstanding.

10.6. The type of a name of a family or of any subdivision of a family is the same as that of the generic name on which it is based (see Art. 18.1). For purposes of designation or citation of a type, the generic name alone suffices. The type of a name of a family or subfamily not based on a generic name is the same as that of the corresponding alternative name (Art. 18.5 and 19.8).

10.7. The principle of typification does not apply to names of taxa above the rank of family, except for names that are automatically typified by being based on generic names (see Art. 16). The type of such a name is the same as that of the generic name on which it is based.

Note 3. For the typification of some names of subdivisions of genera see Art. 22.5 and 22.6.

10A.1. When a combination in a rank of subdivision of a genus has been published under a generic name that has not yet been typified, the type of the generic name should be selected from the subdivision of the genus that was designated as nomenclaturally typical, if that is apparent.