Dear Filip,

the Code regulates nomenclature but this question is rather taxonomic.

Under Art. H3.3 we have a note:

Note 1. Taxa that are believed to be of hybrid origin need not be designated as

nothotaxa.

So it is up to a researcher:

-- if a taxon is a species or a genus that is treated as a hybrid = nothotaxon, then its name may be supplied with the multiplication sign. If it is an infraspecific / infrageneric taxon that is treated as a hybrid, then its rank is prefixed with the term "notho-". The rules of the "H" chapter are applied.

-- if a taxon is of hybrid origin (say, historically, in remote past) but is not treated as a hybrid, the multiplication sign and the prefix "notho-" are not used and the general rules are applied.

Of your three examples,

Salix ×fragilis L. nothovar. russeliana (Sm.) W.D.J. Koch = is correct if Salix fragilis is treated as a hybrid;

Salix fragilis L. nothovar. russeliana (Sm.) W.D.J. Koch = is correct if Salix fragilis is not treated as a hybrid but the variety is treated as a hybrid (say, between two other varieties);

Salix ×fragilis L. var. russeliana (Sm.) W.D.J. Koch = seems to be incorrect because the species name is applied to a hybrid but its subordinated variety is not treated as a hybrid.

Using an incorrect status or misusing the multiplication sign does not affect valid publication of a name provided that other relevant conditions were fulfilled (Art. H10.1, second clause).

Since the names of hybrids at the level of species or below require the same conditions for valid publication, the multiplication sign or the prefix "notho-" can be added or removed later without any effect on the valid publication (Art. H10, Note 1).

The names of hybrids at the level of genus and between genus and species require special conditions for valid publication and cannot change their status (hybrid vs. non-hybrid) so easily. The only exception is when the authors do not follow the set of rules for hybrid genera and infrageneric names and then may publish a "normal" generic name instead (Art. H6, Ex. 4).

Although Art. H10.1 speaks clearly about the names of species and infraspecific taxa, which are protected from possible errors in hybrid status in the protologue, I cannot see any "punishment" in the Code if a nothoname is validly published at the rank of genus or its segregate but without the use of "notho-" devices. These devices show the status but not establish the status per se. The status is established by conditions for valid publication. Such new combinations should be valid.

Hi,

I think based on different plant taxonomy books, the following pattern is the correct form.

Salix × fragilis nothovar. russeliana (Sm.) W.D.J. Koch

Dear Filip,

Interesting problem ... off-topic: it might be of interest that (according to Karl P. Buttler's list) Grabowski and Wimmer (1824) were the first to make this combination:

"Salix fragilis var. russeliana (J. E. Smith) J. C. C. Günther, Grabowski & C. F. H. Wimmer 1824: 157" (see http://www.kp-buttler.de/florenliste/index.htm ).

Regards,

Gerwin

Dear Filip,

the Code regulates nomenclature but this question is rather taxonomic.

Under Art. H3.3 we have a note:

Note 1. Taxa that are believed to be of hybrid origin need not be designated as

nothotaxa.

So it is up to a researcher:

-- if a taxon is a species or a genus that is treated as a hybrid = nothotaxon, then its name may be supplied with the multiplication sign. If it is an infraspecific / infrageneric taxon that is treated as a hybrid, then its rank is prefixed with the term "notho-". The rules of the "H" chapter are applied.

-- if a taxon is of hybrid origin (say, historically, in remote past) but is not treated as a hybrid, the multiplication sign and the prefix "notho-" are not used and the general rules are applied.

Of your three examples,

Salix ×fragilis L. nothovar. russeliana (Sm.) W.D.J. Koch = is correct if Salix fragilis is treated as a hybrid;

Salix fragilis L. nothovar. russeliana (Sm.) W.D.J. Koch = is correct if Salix fragilis is not treated as a hybrid but the variety is treated as a hybrid (say, between two other varieties);

Salix ×fragilis L. var. russeliana (Sm.) W.D.J. Koch = seems to be incorrect because the species name is applied to a hybrid but its subordinated variety is not treated as a hybrid.

Using an incorrect status or misusing the multiplication sign does not affect valid publication of a name provided that other relevant conditions were fulfilled (Art. H10.1, second clause).

Since the names of hybrids at the level of species or below require the same conditions for valid publication, the multiplication sign or the prefix "notho-" can be added or removed later without any effect on the valid publication (Art. H10, Note 1).

The names of hybrids at the level of genus and between genus and species require special conditions for valid publication and cannot change their status (hybrid vs. non-hybrid) so easily. The only exception is when the authors do not follow the set of rules for hybrid genera and infrageneric names and then may publish a "normal" generic name instead (Art. H6, Ex. 4).

Although Art. H10.1 speaks clearly about the names of species and infraspecific taxa, which are protected from possible errors in hybrid status in the protologue, I cannot see any "punishment" in the Code if a nothoname is validly published at the rank of genus or its segregate but without the use of "notho-" devices. These devices show the status but not establish the status per se. The status is established by conditions for valid publication. Such new combinations should be valid.

Thanks a lot, Alexander & co, for elucidating this issue, it is perfectly clear now!

Best wishes,

Filip

Alexander Sennikov clear the question

All things in

CHAPTER H

NAMES OF HYBRIDS

ARTICLE H.3