(072) Proposal to clarify Article 20.3 concerning the form of a generic name, to amend its Examples and to add a new Example

The present Art. 20.3 needs to be clarified by stating its main clause positively, not negatively as at present. As currently worded, it could give the false impression that a generic name formed from two words combined into one is admissible, although Quisqualis in current Ex. 8 (our 7 below) shows this intention. Also, Examples made more understandable slight modifications and rearrangement. We propose following amendments. “20.3. of genus may consist words, unless these are must word (which combining or one), joined hyphen (but see 60.12 for names fossil-genera H.6.2 bigeneric hybrids).” Replace with three Examples: “Ex. 7. Names validly published consisted when originally published: L. (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 556. 1762, ‘Qvisqvalis’) (formed one); Asplenium Pl.: 1078. 1753); Mnium Hedw. Musc. Frond.: 188. 1801).” 8. Designation (Art. 32.1(c)) because was composed separate connected hyphen: “Uva ursi” (Miller, Gard. Dict. Abr., 4: Uva ursi. 1754); corresponding correctly attributed Duhamel (Traité Arbr. Arbust. 371. 1755) Uva-ursi (hyphenated published).” 8bis. hyphenated Neves-armondia K. Schum. (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. Nachtr. 1: 302. 1897), Sebastiano-schaueria Nees Martius, Fl. Bras. 9: 158. 1847), Solms-laubachia Muschl. ex Diels Notes Roy. Bot. Edinburgh 5: 205. 1912).”