(320–324) Proposals to clarify the term “description”, define “validating description” and clarify two Examples (Article 38)

It is well known that a description required to publish the name of new taxon under Art. 38.1 Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). These proposals offer revised definition “description” address nomina subnuda, i.e. names whose protologues include descriptive statements are not adequate validly name, and propose changes 38 Ex. 3 7 involving subnuda. Perry (in Taxon 53: 1102–1105. 2004) published 11 about half which were accepted. Her proposal 302 defined as “any statement describing feature or features taxon” added requirement after 2006 had diagnosis. Although this was rejected (McNeill 54: 1061 [Art. 32 Prop. B]. 2005), Vienna 146. 2006) included similar but subtly different omitted word “describing” Perry's proposed definition; current Glossary states “description. [Not defined] – an individual taxon; […].” (The stated “a written for valid publication its […].”) 305, adding what now 38.3 7, accepted al., l.c. 2005 E]). Example involves Musa basjoo, by Siebold Verh. Bat. Genootsch. Kunsten 12: 18. 1830) including numerous properties specified (“purely aesthetic features, economic, medicinal culinary use, cultural significance, cultivation techniques, geographical origin, geological age”) acceptable quotes stating “Ex foliis linteum […] conficitur” (linen made from leaves) concluded “because there no information on “leaves”, only character mentioned, it does satisfy 38.1(a)”. In our view, implicitly treated leaf feature, correct based language her because did “describe” definition. However, merely requires feature. To support we suggest be reflect original without diagnostic statement. A second point related less apparent. leaves strong enough make linen. Users may disagree whether protologue plant has sufficient name. can supported requiring contain some explicit plant's excluding those addressed 38.3. “38.n. explicitly one more taxon. need diagnostic.” “Ex. 7. “Musa basjoo” (Siebold appeared with insulis Luikiu introducta, vix asperitati hiemis resistens. Ex linteum, praesertim ac quibusdam provinciae Satzuma conficitur. Est haud dubie quod Philippinis incolis audit Nippis.” This gives economic use leaves), hardiness (scarcely survives winter), origin (introduced Ryukyu Islands)., b Because (e.g. shape texture) (the mentioned), 38.1(a) “description diagnosis”. basjoo Zucc. ex Iinuma later (Sintei Somoku Dzusetsu [Illustrated Flora Japan], ed. 2, 3: ad t. 1. 1874) floral details other material Japanese.” If above rejected, recommend Editorial Committee either delete modify better Example. Another interesting previous itself convey “viridiflora”). Article implies simply translation specific epithet achieve We wonder if many would consider such (which might even descriptive). words, contrast nomen nudum, “Echinocereus viridiflorus”, smithii. Green flowers.” latter likely destabilizing. For reason, (or diagnosis) (Art. 38.3); validating Note 2). itself, applied not, serve description.” Hassemer 69: 1–4. 2020) kinds describe draw upon their following proposal. [in boldface]. , morphological, anatomical, biochemical, karyological, molecular, taxon, cannot limited noted 2).” “In Don, Sweet's Hortus britannicus, (1839), each listed species flower colour, duration plant, into English given tabular form. genera colour identical all clearly mention intended Names taxa appearing work therefore published, except cases where reference earlier descriptions diagnoses.” (Note state Don two same genus instead that, unspecified genera, species.) (l.c.) 307 have rule “When, list taxa, form expression reported within next higher group (e.g., genus), 32.1(c) diagnosis” satisfied any taxa.” withdrawn G]). concerned could considered analogy 3; brief provided these also apply taxa. review britannicus reveals important should limit application. “*Ex. 3. catalogue plants Each appears single line various abbreviations habit, flowers cases, than diagnoses voted Don's catalogues.” The uses term “validating description” places defining it. See, e.g., 1, 7.8 46.2. provisions makes clear previously effectively referenced protologue. amendment define “38.1. order (see 6.9) must (a) accompanied diagnosis 38.7 38.8) or, none protologue, 38.13) (except 13.4 H.9; see 14.9 14.14); (b) comply relevant 32–45 F.4–F.5. protologue) diagnosis.” thank Nicholas J. Turland Dr. John H. Wiersema comments suggestions, significantly improved proposals.