Publication of Names 



RULE 10. Valid publication is treated as beginning for the bacteria with 1 

 May 1753, the date of publication of Linnaeus' Species Plantorum, edition 1. 



ANNOTATIONS 



Rule 10. The problem of fixing the beginning date for valid publi- 

 cation of names for plants was considered at several of the early 

 Botanical Congresses. It was agreed that names published before the 

 date of Linnaeus' Species Plantariim 1753 would not be considered 

 as validly published. The two volumes of the Species Plantariim 

 appeared respectively in May and August of 1753. For nomenclatural 

 purposes it was decided that both volumes should be regarded as 

 having been published simultaneously on 1 May 1753. 



However, it was evident that the Species Plantariim did not give 

 an adequate coverage of certain groups of plants, e.g., fungi and algae. 

 It was decided to accept certain monographic treatments published 

 at later dates as the beginnings of valid publication for such groups. 

 As fixed in the Botanical Code, valid publication of the groups of 

 interest to microbiologists are as follows: 



Fungi: Uredinales, Ustilaginales and Gasteromycetes, 31 Dec. 1801. 



(Persoon, Synopsis Methodica Fungorum) . 

 Fungi Caeteri, 1 Jan. 1821 (Fries, Systema Mycologicum, Vol. 1) . 

 Algae: Nostocaceae Homocysteae, 1892-93 (Gomont, Monographic 



des Oscillaries, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. VI. i5:263-368; 76:91-264) . 



Nostocaceae Heterocysteae, 1886-88 (Bornet and Flahault, Re- 

 vision des Nostocacees heterocystees. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. VII. 



3:323-381; ^:343-373; 5:51-129; 7:177-262). 



Desmidiaceae, 1848 (Ralfs, British Desmidieae) . 



Oedogoniaceae, 1900 (Hirn, Monographic und Iconographic dcr 



Oedogoniaccen. Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27 [1]). 



Myxomycetes, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum ed. 1) . 



Bacteria, 1 May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, cd. 1) . 

 At the Botanical Congress held in Brussels in 1910, various "points 

 of departure" for the bacteria were considered. Vuillemin proposed 

 that 1753 be adopted. Klebahn suggested that the work of F. Cohn 

 (1870-76, Untersuchungen iiber Bakterien) was more suitable. His 

 position was approved by Engler. Magnus contended that much work 

 of systematic value had been accomplished before 1870 and proposed 

 that the publication of Ehrenberg in 1786 [1838] should be the 

 starting point. (Possibly Magnus intended Mueller 1786.) Vuillemin 

 contended that if a date subseqtient to 1753 be taken, it might well 

 be 1910. The whole matter was finally deferred to the next Congress. 



[59] 



