On the terms in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature

2007 ◽  
Vol 45 (04) ◽  
pp. 593
Author(s):  
Li-Bing ZHANG
IMA Fungus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Catherine Aime ◽  
Andrew N. Miller ◽  
Takayuki Aoki ◽  
Konstanze Bensch ◽  
Lei Cai ◽  
...  

AbstractIt is now a decade since The International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF) produced an overview of requirements and best practices for describing a new fungal species. In the meantime the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICNafp) has changed from its former name (the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature) and introduced new formal requirements for valid publication of species scientific names, including the separation of provisions specific to Fungi and organisms treated as fungi in a new Chapter F. Equally transformative have been changes in the data collection, data dissemination, and analytical tools available to mycologists. This paper provides an updated and expanded discussion of current publication requirements along with best practices for the description of new fungal species and publication of new names and for improving accessibility of their associated metadata that have developed over the last 10 years. Additionally, we provide: (1) model papers for different fungal groups and circumstances; (2) a checklist to simplify meeting (i) the requirements of the ICNafp to ensure the effective, valid and legitimate publication of names of new taxa, and (ii) minimally accepted standards for description; and, (3) templates for preparing standardized species descriptions.


2014 ◽  
Vol 51 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 413-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucyna Pawłowska

A comparison of the qualitative composition of leaves from specimens of Polish taxa of the genus <em>Betula</em> L. points to a specific distinction of <em>B. pendula</em> Roth., <em>B. pubescens</em> Ehrh., <em>B. humilis</em> Schrk., <em>B. nana</em> L., and <em>B. oycoviensis</em> Bess., and also <em>B. "nova"</em> which requires description according to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. <em>B. obscura</em> Kot. can be recognized only as a subspecies of <em>B. pendula</em>, whereas <em>B. carpatica</em> Waldst. and <em>B. tortuosa</em> Ledeb. may be geographical variaties of one and the same subspecies distinguished within <em>B. pubescens</em>.


Bothalia ◽  
1971 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. P. Van der Walt

Van der Walt and Van Kerken (1959) and Van der Walt (1965. 1966, 1967) introduced several non-valid combinations in the genera  Brettanomyces, Kluyveromyces, Lodderomyces and Wingea by omitting to list relevant basionyms according to the requirements of Article 33 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. As these combinations, however, have been adopted in the new taxo­nomic treatise edited by Lodder (1970), they are now validated in conformance with the requirements of the Code.


Mycotaxon ◽  
10.5248/108.1 ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
David L. Hawksworth ◽  
Pedro W. Crous ◽  
José C. Dianese ◽  
Marieka Gryzenhout ◽  
Lorelei L. Norvell ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
G. T. Boalch

The original descriptions of these two species are discussed and the material mentioned in Smith's description is examined. Discrepancies between Smith's description of Coscinodiscus concinnus and the present interpretation of this species are pointed out. Ways of typifying the two species so as to preserve current usage and still fulfil the requirement of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are given. Lectotypes for the two species are designated. Diagnostic characters distinguishing the two species in the living state as well as the cleaned valves are given.


Taxon ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore M. Barkley ◽  
Paula DePriest ◽  
Vicki Funk ◽  
Robert W. Kiger ◽  
W. John Kress ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 65
Author(s):  
F. Gómez

A checklist and classification of the extant dinoflagellates are given. Dinokaryotic dinoflagellates (including Noctilucales) comprised 2,294 species belonging to 238 genera. Dinoflagellates sensu lato (Ellobiopsea, Oxyrrhea, Syndinea and Dinokaryota) comprised 2,377 species belonging to 259 genera. The nomenclature of several taxa has been corrected according to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. When gene sequences were available, the species were classified following the Small and Large SubUnit rDNA (SSU and LSU rDNA) phylogenies. No taxonomical innovations are proposed herein. However, the checklist revealed that taxa distantly related to the type species of their genera would need to be placed in a new or another known genus. At present, the most extended molecular markers are unable to elucidate the interrelations between the classical orders, and the available sequences of other markers are still insufficient. The classification of the dinoflagellates remains unresolved, especially at the order level. Inventario y classificacion de especies de dinoflagelados actuales (Dinoflagellata, Alveolata) Se presentan un inventario y una clasificación de las especies de dinoflagelados actuales. Los dinoflagelados dinocariontes (incluyendo los Noctilucales) están formados por 2,294 especies pertenecientes a 238 géneros. Los dinoflagelados en un sentido amplio (Ellobiopsea, Oxyrrhea, Syndinea y Dinokaryota) comprenden un total de 2,377 especies distribuidas en 259 géneros. La nomenclatura de algunos taxones se ha corregido siguiendo las reglas del Código Internacional de Nomenclatura Botánica. Cuando hay secuencias disponibles, la clasificación de las especies propuesta ha seguido las filogenias moleculares de los marcadores de los ARNs de la subunidades pequeña y grande del ribosoma (SSU y LSU rADN, respectivamente). Aunque no se propone ninguna novedad taxonómica, se evidencia la necesidad de numerosos cambios. Numerosas especies cuyas secuencias están disponibles aparecen muy alejadas en las filogenias moleculares de la especie tipo de su género, lo que requerirá su transferencia a otro género conocido o el establecimiento de un nuevo género. Actualmente con los marcadores moleculares más extendidos no es posible aclarar las relaciones entre los órdenes de los esquemas taxonómicos clásicos y las secuencias disponibles de otros genes es aun insuficiente. La clasificación, muy especialmente a nivel de orden, está aún lejos de poder ser resuelta.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document