(070) Proposal to add a new example after article 9 note 6 to illustrate when the term “holotype” cannot be corrected

Abstract

Some confusion may arise regarding the application of Art. 9.10 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). When the term “holotype”is misused, it can be corrected (to lecto-, neo-or epitype). For this, the requirements of Art. 7.11 must be met. While Art. 9 Ex. 11 illustrates when the misused term “holotype” can be corrected, there is no Example illustrating when the term cannot be corrected. Although Art. 7.11 is clear, and a typification statement on or after 1 January 2001 must include the phrase “designated here” or an equivalent, adding an Example after Art. 9 Note 6 could be clarifying. Hence, I feel that the following new Example should be included in the Code.