ICBN Art. 7.11

[Robert Mill]

Dear Michael and Taxacomers

Please refer to my original reply (copied below) to a similar
message from yourself just over a year ago, of which fortunately I
still have the copy!

Since the original message I can say, yes, I have seen "here
designated" or "hic designatus" in the descriptions of new taxa,
particularly by palaeobotanists. See for example the descriptions of
Cycadeoidea maccafferyi Rothwell & Stockey in Amer. J. Bot. 89:
1448 (2002), Williamsonia bockii Stockey & Rothwell in Int. J.
Plant Sci. 164: 253 (2003). But, to repeat the conclusions of my
original reply, it is *not* necessary to write "hic designatus" or
"here designated" when describing a new species. It *is*
necessary (from 1.1.2001) when designating a *lectotype* (or a
neotype, epitype etc.), but *not* for a holotype. Simply writing
"holotype", "holotypus" or "holo." is enough. Art. 7.11 is very badly
worded in the 2000 edition of the ICBN in my opinion, because a lot
of people including myself have misunderstood what it means and
what the context is. The context is lectotypification or similar
procedures, as indicated by the first four words of the article "For
purposes of priority" and both the Examples. But for some reason
people seem to be extending the requirements to the description of
new taxa. That is covered by Art. 37, in particular Art. 37.5, which
makes no mention of "hic designatus" or similar phrases.

I do hope this message helps to clear up some of the confusion
that obviously exists around Art. 7.11. Unfortunately I no longer
have the message by Thomas Lammers to which I make reference
below, but it should be on the Taxacom archives.

Best wishes
Robert Mill



From:                   Robert Mill <R.Mill at rbge.org.uk>
To:                     Michael Vincent
<vincenma at MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:                Re: ICBN art. 7.11
Copies to:              TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
Date sent:              Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:23:45 BST

Dear everyone

I've had "hallucinations" myself about the wording of Art. 7.11 twice
now - when Michael Vincent's message came in just now, and
when the Code came out in 2000. Both times I hastily started
amending my own papers and alerted our journal editor!!

But, after further thought, I agree with Thomas Lammers. The
important bit is the beginning of the Article: "For purposes of
priority ....". Unpublished names of *new* taxa will have priority
from the date their protologue is eventually effectively and validly
published, so there is nothing to worry about from that angle as
regards names of new taxa published after 1/1/01, or ones in
manuscript that you are preparing for submission. As Thomas
Lammers has already pointed out, Arts. 9.17 and 10.5, cited in
7.11, deal with lectotypification and neotypification, where the
issue of priority *is* important. From now on, in such cases we
have to write "Lectotype (here designated): ..." or "Neotypus (hic
designatus): ..." or similar, not just "Lectotype: ..." or "Neotypus:
...", but most of us have been doing that for years anyway. Now,
what has been common practice has become mandatory.

But, I agree that the wording of 7.11 is confusing and does make it
look like you have to write "Planta alba sp. nov. Type (here
designated) ...". You don't; but you would have to do that if an
equivalent clause was ever inserted to Art. 37.5, which is the one
dealing with types of new taxa at genus rank or below. At present,
that Article just states that you must use the word Typus,
Holotypus, type, holotype or their abbreviation. (Codifiers please
note - leave that Article as it is please!!!!).

Best wishes
Robert Mill

> Dear Plant-oriented TAXACOM members:
>
> Is what I see in Art. 7.11 of the ICBN really saying what it looks
> like?  It appears that any new plant species described after 1 Jan.
> 2001, in addition to having the type designated, must also have
the
> phrase "here designated" or equivalent.  Am I hallucinating, or
does
> this mean that almost any plant described after 1/1/2001 is
> invalidly published?



      ********************************************************
      (Dr) ROBERT R MILL
      Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
      20a Inverleith Row, EDINBURGH EH3 5LR, SCOTLAND, U.K.
      (Part of THE NATIONAL BOTANIC GARDENS OF SCOTLAND)
      E-Mail:   R.Mill at rbge.org.uk  RBGE Website: http://www.rbge.org.uk
      Direct Line: + 44 131 248 2935   Fax:  + 44 131 248 2901
                     General Enquiries: + 44 131 552 7171
        ********************************************************