Hi Alexander! I hope I understand your problem correctly, but the solution may be more complex. To be sure, the names you gave in the examples are invented for the purpose of the question? Of course, this is irrelevant to the overall answer.

First, a name for a subdivision of a genus that we interpret as an autonym is not necessarily invalid if the type species for that genus is not listed as a type. It all depends on whether the name of another subdivision has been published validly, because then the said autonym is somehow automatically created.

Using your example, if Protea subgen. latina sect. dubia was described validly, then Protea subgen. latina sect. latina arises as an autonym also validly, even if Protea ficticia (type species of Protea subgen. latina) was not listed for Protea subgen. latina sect. latina.

However, here it all depends on whether another subdivision within the genus was described validly (not autonym), so you need to pay attention to whether the author indicated a type other than the type for the genus or nominlny subdivision.

If the type is not indicated clearly, and only a list of species names is presented, including one whose epithet corresponds to the name of the subdivision then you can treat it as a type, and such a name was validly published, even if the list includes the type species for the genus.

Using your example, if Protea subgen. latina sect. dubia was described with a list of species names on which Protea dubia is found, then you can treat the section as described validly, even if Protea ficticia is also on the list. Unless the author clearly indicated another species as the type for the section, and Protea subgen. latina sect. latina arises as an autonym also validly.

Please compare Ex. 5 in Art. 22.2 of the Code.

The problem would be if the author describing Protea subgen. latina sect. dubia explicitly indicated that the type is Protea ficticia, because according to your example Protea subgen. latina sect. dubia would be described invalidly and thus Protea subgen. latina sect. latina does not arise as an autonym and is also invalid.

I hope this helps and I haven't missed some important little detail.

Hi Alexander Damián-Parizaca and Sławomir Nowak

I generally agree here with Mr. Nowak, with one difference. When you say "If the type is not indicated clearly, and only a list of species names is presented, including one whose epithet corresponds to the name of the subdivision then you can treat it as a type, and such a name was validly published, even if the list includes the type species for the genus." I fear that merely listing the type of another name at the same rank does invalidate it.

If Protea ficticia is listed under P. subgen. dubia and it is the type species of P. subgen. latina at the time that P. subgen. dubia is proposed, then the latter is a nomenclatural synonym of the first. The same happens when you describe a new genus. If you list the type of another, validly published, genus, then automatically they are synonymous.

You can find this in Ex. 4 of Art. 22.2 of the Code. In Ex. 5 of Art. 22.2, which you mention, the difference is that the subdivision of Cactus which also included the type was created BEFORE that species was selected as type of genus Cactus. So essentially, P. subgen. dubia would be valid even if P. ficticia is listed only if P. ficticia would be selected as type of P. subgen. latina afterwards.

Hope this helps. All the best,

Hello Slawomir and Adam,

Following up on your answers using Alexander's example of infrageneric division in Protea subgen. latina sect. dubia; when P. subgen. latina sect. dubia was created (assuming it was validly published according to Art. 26.3 since the author indicated the type -which was not the type for P. subgen. latina, i.e. P. ficticia, but another species), the autonym was automatically and validly published as well (i.e., P. subgen. latina sect. latina) whether or not it appeared in print in the publication in which it was created (Arts. 6.8 and 32.7).

Now, since the type was listed under P. subgen. latina sect. dubia, I wonder if an autonym can be created without containing any species on it. Also, if the autonym should contain the type of Protea subgen. latina (Art. 7.6), does it make Protea subgen. latina sect. dubia a synonym of P. subgen. latina sect. latina even though it met the criterion to be validly published?

Thank you both for your input.

Nicole

Hi Nicole:

- The autonym does not need to appear on paper, it is created as soon as the other subdivision is effectively published, even if it is illegitimate or invalid. In a sense, all autonyms already exist as all the unused, but possible, subdivisions of a genus that contains the type.

- Any subdivision of a genus that explicitly contains the type of another preexisting subdivision at the same rank and which is validly published is per definition a nomenclatural synonym and is therefore invalid.

Hi All,

Adam, of course I agree with you, is an important addition to my statement. Note further that Article 22.2 talks about using an appropriate epithet when generic subdivision is described which includes the type species for the genus. This is mentioned in Ex. 4. itself.

Although there may be exceptions to this rule as well if we consider Articles 22.3 and 22.4.

Just for the record, applying all of these possibilities, subdivision unit can be created that will include species type for genus and still be valid. However, it is nomenclaturally superfluous and such names are illegitimate and, moreover, as you mentioned will be synonymous with autonym. Unless it is conserved, etc. but that's another story.

Nicole, Adam rightly points out that autonyms in a certain sense exist and do not need to be published. Although the Code recommends mentioning them when publishing a name of a subdivision of a genus (22B.1).

I disagree in part with the Adam's second statement, because we need to separate the fact that the name was published validly and whether it is legitimate, as mentioned earlier.

Still adding, you mentioned article 26.3, but remember that it deals with infraspecific taxa, we are considering subdivision of the genus. Most of the rules are analogous, but there are also differences.

In conclusion, it is impossible to describe autonyms without a type (autonyms do not need to be described either), because they automatically have the same type as the type, etc.

If however Protea subgen. latina sect. dubia is described validly and contains P. ficticia which is the type for Protea subgen. latina sect. latina, then yes, it will be synonymous with the latter.

Best,

Slawek

Thank you for your insights, Sławomir Nowak A. P. Karremans