BOTANICAL NOMENCI.ATimE 



Examples: The generic name Tapei7ia7ithus Boiss. ex Benth. (1848), given to a 

 genus of Labiatae, is a later homonym of Tapeinanthus Herb. (1837), a name pre- 

 viously and validly published for a genus of Amaryllidaceae ; Tapeinanthus Boiss. 

 ex Benth. must, therefore, be rejected, as was done by Th. Durand (Ind. Gen. 

 Than. 703: 1888) who renamed it TMispeinanta. — The generic name Amblyanthera 

 Miill. Arg. (1860) is a later homonym of the validly published generic name 

 Amblyanthera Blume (1849), and must, therefore, be rejected, although Ambly- 

 anthera Blume is now reduced to OsbecMa L. (1753). — Astragalus rhisanthus Boiss. 

 (Diagn. Fl. Or. ser. 1^ ii, 83: 1843) is a later homonym of the validly published 

 name Astragalus rhisanthus Koyle (Illstr. Bot. Himal. 200: 1835), and it must, 

 therefore, be rejected, as was done by Boissier, who renamed it A. cariensis 

 (Diagn. ser. 1, ix, 57: 1849). 



Note. — Mere orthographic variants of the same name are treated as homonyms 

 — see Art. 70. 



Art. 62. A name of a taxonomic group must be rejected if, owing 

 to its use with different meanings, it becomes a permanent source of 

 confusion or error. A list of names to be abandoned for this reason 

 (Nomina amhigua) will form Appendix IV. 



Examples: The generic name Alsine L., being used by various authors for three 

 genera of Caryophyllaceae (Stellaria L., Spergularia J. & C. Presl, Mirmiartia L.), 

 has been a permanent source of confusion and error (see Sprague in "Kew Bul- 

 letin," 1920, 308).— The name Eosa villosa L., 8p. Fl. ed. 1, 491 (1753), is re- 

 jected, because it has been applied to several different species, and has become a 

 source of confusion. 



Art. 63. A name of a taxonomic group must be rejected when its 

 application is uncertain (nomen duhium) : e. g. Ervum soloniense L. 

 (Cent. II. PI. 28: 1756) is a name the application of which is uncer- 

 tain; it must, therefore, be rejected (see Schinz and Thell. in Vier- 

 teljahresschr. Nat. Ges. Zurich, Iviii, 71: 1913). 



Recommendation XXXVII. Wlien the correct application of a nomen dubium 

 has been established by subsequent investigation (of types, etc.), authors adopting 

 it should, for purposes of precision, cite the name of the author who published the 

 additional certifying evidence as well as that of the original author. It is also 

 desirable to add the date of certification. 



Art. 64. A name of a taxonomic group must be rejected if the charac- 

 ters of that group were derived from two or more entirely discordant 

 elements, especially if those elements were erroneously supposed to 

 form part of the same individual : e. g. the characters of the genus 

 Schrehera L. (Sp. PI. ed. 2, 1662; 1763; Gen. PI. ed. 6, 124: 1764) were 

 derived from the two genera Cuscufa and Myrica (parasite and host), 

 see Retzius (Ohs. vi, 15: 1791). A list of names to be abandoned for 

 this reason (Nomina confum) will form Appendix VI. 



Art. 65. A name or epithet of a taxonomic group must be rejected 

 when it is based on a monstrosity. 



Art. 66. The name of an order, suborder, family or subfamily, 

 tribe or subtribe must be changed when it is taken from the name of 

 a genus which is known not to belong to the group in question — e. g. 

 if the genus Portidaca were excluded from the family now known as 

 Portulacaceae, the residual group could no longer bear the name Port- 

 ulacaceae, and would have to be renamed. 



Art. 67. Names of genera are illegitimate in the following special 

 cases and must be rejected : — 



(1) When they are merely words not intended as names: e. g. 

 Anonymos Walt. (Fl. Carol, 2, 4, 9, etc.: 1788) must be re- 

 jected as being a word applied to 28 different genera by Walter 

 to indicate that they were without names. 



9] 



