(306–314) Proposals to address subsequent type designations (Articles 9.14, 9.19 and Recommendation <scp>9A</scp>.4)

This set of proposals addresses Art. 9.14 and related issues in 9.19 Rec. 9A.4 the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Article states “When a type (herbarium sheet or equivalent preparation) contains parts belonging to more than one taxon (see 9.11), name must remain attached part […] that corresponds most nearly with original description diagnosis.” The first proposal clarifies what, if any, action is required “attach” under 9.14. While cross-reference 9.11 suggests formal typification required, words “must remain” suggest this attachment automatic, perhaps publication correction without use “designated here” other formalities sufficient. an automatic may be useful some cases, others it not clear which consistent description, botanists disagree on answer, leading disparate treatment name. To address concern, we are view should required. following would require based language 9.17 (which provides “that later found to” consist specimen can narrowed “by way subsequent […]typification” specimens). “9.14. When A contain 9.11) nevertheless accepted (subject 9.20), but further (by typification) (specimen as defined 8.2) second apparent contradiction between 9A.4. Recommendation two heterogeneous elements were included cited diagnosis, lectotype so selected preserve current usage.” have been intended untypified names, also appears apply taxon; case, recommends usage maintained despite rule corresponding description. There no explanation for different treatments. If while preserves longstanding usage, application leads unnecessary nomenclatural instability. Revising retroactively might cases create instability; amending prospectively problem respect. there designation left judgment designating parties, who wish consider usages name, particulars specimen. situation, propose change diagnosis. However, after 1 January 2026, remains mixed traditional insofar possible.” protologue cites does illustration does, incorrectly latter designated violation 9.12. It has revised accord definition material. Finally, last sentence reflect actual 9.19(c). We offer these matters. “9A.4. material consists possible (but see 9.12). In particular, another author already segregated taxa, remaining provided element serious conflict diagnosis 9.19(c)).” 9.19(b) superseded shown contrary provide anything, show closely resembles regard controversial. shows earlier-designated 9.14, earlier was necessarily unacceptable when designated; fact, nothing supersede. resolve situation presented. Any from standing.” “9.19. designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, F.5.4) neotype conformity 9.11–9.13 followed, choice (a) holotype or, case neotype, any exist; (b) (c) […].” next clarify neither nor applies illustrations. Both Articles “types” includes both specimens illustrations) additional referring mentioning many treat sufficient exclude illustrations their coverage, second-step portion previously type. explicitly state covered by either 9.17. “Note n. An cannot type, prior indication such effective unless limited taxon.” “9.17. lectotype, epitype (in each excluding refer single gathering lectotypification, neotypification, epitypification 9.14).” “The [in certain circumstances]”. purpose “in 9.11–9.13” immediately clear. added because supersession rules applicable 9.16 its own 9.18), fails 9.16, those four do followed. requirement followed arguably conflicts permit new lost, destroyed missing. matters, changes proposed. relevant 9 replacement 9. (other 9.16) 9.19(c) seriously protologue, “an chosen; only non-conflicting material, exists; none exists neotype”. Because designate reason avoid supersession. standard too strict, especially protologues now quite long exceedingly detailed: whatsoever renders ineffective. exist, then theoretically including designated. amendments chosen protologue.” Ex. 15 herbarium containing (and taxon) comply 8.2 3 thereunder) very include gathering. As such, simply standing. future confusion subject, deletion 15. thank Nicholas J. Turland Dr. John H. Wiersema comments suggestions.