(055–064) Proposals to clarify Articles 6.9–6.13 and Article 41

Article 6.10 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) introduces and defines terms “new combination” “name at new rank” together same sentence. One might not realize they are also defined Glossary, where further information concerning rank is given. It would be preferable to use definitions Glossary Art. 6.10. “6.10. A combination (combinatio nova, comb. nov.) or name (status novus, stat. a for taxon below genus based on legitimate, previously published name, which its basionym. different rank, The basionym does itself have basionym; it provides final epithet1, stem rank. (See 41.2).” Do combinations need validly under 41? as “name” (which includes 38) an earlier name; therefore, one potential misreading that permits valid publication 38. seems desirable alert reader 41 appropriate rule. accordance with basionym.” While interaction among 6.9, generally clear, there few questions. rules state that, order published, must refer certain items. first question whether “based on” requirement imposes additional beyond required by reference 41. For example, if no evidence later author aware author? Examples 41.3 41.4 dealing indirect references “presumed intent” imply imposed Another meets all requirements both 38 (dealing names taxa) can either type. (This possible some replacement names, seen 6.13.) 48.1 answer: has “apparent” but “explicitly excludes” type name. This suggests explicitly excludes result, But mention 48. (1) (2) 41, (3) excluded (see 48.1). epithet 1 , concerns giving rise Proposal (056) apply 6.11 6.12. latter trickier due two-part definition. In addition, 6.12(b) incorrectly described 7.5(b) taxon. “6.11. (nomen novum, nom. explicit substitute (avowed substitute) legitimate illegitimate, replaced synonym.” “6.12. proposed nevertheless (a) validated solely (b) treated provisions 7.5.” Under Code, now three ways may yet otherwise. cross-reference 6.12 6.13 should added 6.11. substitute; see 6.13) synonym. synonym, when provide epithet, 41.2 58.1).” Added flexibility regarding treatment protologue cites synonym otherwise met. Literally read, before 2007 conditions needed satisfy cite (Art. 41.5). Conversely, clear applies from 1953 onward cited place another item 41.5. second sentence contemplate already typified manner was predominant usage; therefore such unacceptable. Furthermore, undesirable allow future designation disputed party who disagrees party's assessment name's predominate usage. “6.13. covered protologue1 met independently Decision status usage effected means 9 10).” “6A.1. decision typification name.” 6.9 states cannot term raises two concerns. First, while definition Melbourne (McNeill 154. 2012) used on”, longer Code; ancillary revisions were made reflect language 6.11–6.13. Second, qualify combinations, except omission detail 41.5, nonetheless meet rules. Prior 33.8 Vienna 146. 2006) stated these published; however, deleted, because “serves useful purpose, instead harm” Taxon 59: 1921. 2010). However, still read precluding those basis name”. “6.9. (e.g. gen. nov., species sp. own right, i.e. combination, 41.5 publish after 1952, bibliographic reference. this correct case (i.e. illegitimate superfluous 52); exist virtue including even referenced. (As could providing do names!) “41.9. None foregoing 52 neither 7.5(a) nor applies.” I thank J.H. Wiersema N.J. Turland significantly improving proposals.