In botanical nomenclature, there isn't a specific term equivalent to "stat. nov." (status novus) for a change from a "correct" name to an incorrect status, such as a nomen illegitimum (illegitimate name), nomen superfluum (superfluous name), nomen inquirendum (name of uncertain application), or nomen dubium (dubious name).

However, such changes are indeed treated as "nomenclatural novelties" under the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). These changes are typically documented in taxonomic revisions or floristic treatments, where the status change is explained and justified based on the rules and recommendations of the ICN.

Key Terms:

1. Nom. illeg. (nomen illegitimum): A name that is considered illegitimate because it was superfluous at the time of its publication or does not conform to the rules of the ICN.

2. Nom. superfl. (nomen superfluum): A name that was superfluous when published because the taxon already had a validly published name.

3. Nom. inq. (nomen inquirendum): A name whose application is uncertain and needs further investigation.

4. Nom. dub. (nomen dubium): A name of dubious or uncertain application.

Practices in Botanical Nomenclature:

When a name is determined to be illegitimate (nom. illeg.), superfluous (nom. superfl.), or dubious (nom. dub.), it is typically accompanied by a citation of the relevant article of the ICN that renders it incorrect. The name is flagged as such in floras, monographs, or other taxonomic treatments.

To flag the change explicitly, botanists often publish a note explaining the change in status. This explanation provides details about why the name is considered illegitimate or uncertain. However, this does not have a formalized equivalent term like "stat. nov." but would be considered part of the taxonomic or nomenclatural note.

6.10. A new combination (combinatio nova, comb. nov.) or name at new rank (status novus, stat. nov.) is a new name based on a legitimate, previously published name, which is its basionym. The basionym does not itself have a basionym; it provides the final epithet1, name, or stem of the new combination or name at new rank. (See also Art. 41.2).

stat. nov. has nothing to do with incorrect name.

nom. illeg. and nom. superfl. are frequently used in standard taxonomic works

Phil Käding Thanks for the detailed info. Just noted that "nomenclatural novelty" is also restricted by ICN to changes within correct names ICN Art. 6.10 Note 4.

"Note 4. The phrase “nomenclatural novelty”, as used in this Code, refers to any or all of the categories: name of a new taxon, new combination, name at new rank, and replacement name."

And Glossary

"nomenclatural novelty. Any or all of the categories: name of a new taxon, new combination, name at new rank, and replacement name (Art. 6 Note 4; see also Art. 6 Note 5) (see also new name)."

So that term is also off limits for correct to incorrect/questionable change.

I resorted to using "Other taxonomic novelties" in the section of my monograph on "Taxonomic acts", (after new synonyms, and new type designations) and will highlight such status changes from correct to nom. illegal/superfl./dub./inq. with "Taxonomic novelty" in semibold italics.

If there is something better that is not pre-occupied with specific ICN meaning, please let me know. Thanks!

I work on a global monograph of a genus with about 470 names, last monographed in 1859. So a lot of clean-up to do. So far published 80 syn. nov., 70 more ms syn. nov. right now, tendency increasing. 10 ms type designations (I don't do lectotypifications that are not absolutely necessary; syntypes are fine if there isn't a problem with species concept), and about 20 ms taxonomic novelties. Only one new species, with one additional new species that I will not name because it is only known from confiscated flowers (no habit, no locality, just some flowers, but beyond distinct).