# Kew Rule

> Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Kew_Rule
> Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Kew_Rule.md
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kew_Rule
> Source revision: 1314252640
> License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

Historical rule for derterming synonyms in botany

The **Kew Rule** was used by some authors to determine the application of synonymous names in botanical nomenclature up to about 1906,[1] but was and still is contrary to [codes](/source/Nomenclature_code) of [botanical nomenclature](/source/Botanical_nomenclature) including the [International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants](/source/International_Code_of_Nomenclature_for_algae%2C_fungi%2C_and_plants). *[Index Kewensis](/source/Index_Kewensis)*, a publication that aimed to list all [botanical names](/source/Botanical_names) for [seed plants](/source/Seed_plant) at the ranks of [species](/source/Species) and [genus](/source/Genus), used the Kew Rule until its *Supplement IV* was published in 1913 (prepared 1906–1910).[1]

The Kew Rule applied rules of [priority](/source/Priority_(biology)) in a more flexible way, so that when transferring a species to a new genus, there was no requirement to retain the epithet of the original species name, and future priority of the new name was counted from the time the species was transferred to the new genus.[2] The effect has been summarized as "nomenclature used by an established monographer or in a major publication should be adopted".[3] This is contrary to the modern article 11.4 of the Code of Nomenclature.[4]

## History

### Beginnings

The first discussion in print of what was to become known as the Kew Rule appears to have occurred in 1877 between [Henry Trimen](/source/Henry_Trimen) and [Alphonse Pyramus de Candolle](/source/Alphonse_Pyramus_de_Candolle).[5] Trimen did not think it was reasonable for older names discovered in the literature to destabilize the nomenclature that had been well accepted:[6]

Probably all botanists are agreed that it is very desirable to retain when possible old specific names, but some of the best authors do not certainly consider themselves bound by any generally accepted rule in this matter. Still less will they be inclined to allow that a writer is at liberty, as M. de Candolle thinks, to reject the specific appellations made by an author whose genera are accepted, in favour of older ones in other genera. It will appear to such that to do this is to needlessly create in each case another synonym.

### The end

The first botanical code of nomenclature that declared itself to be binding was the 1906 publication *Règles internationales de la nomenclature botanique adoptées par le Congres International de Botanique de Vienne 1905* that followed from the 1905 [International Botanical Congress](/source/International_Botanical_Congress).[5] The Kew Rule was outlawed by this code.

The end of the Kew Rule brought about considerable upheaval in botanical nomenclature. Many new species names were coined to resurrect older epithets, for example, in 1917 [Willis Jepson](/source/Willis_Linn_Jepson) wrote:[7]

"The plant so long known as *[Brodiaea grandiflora](/source/Brodiaea_grandiflora)* Smith ... [was] first published as *Hookera coronaria* Salisbury (1806). The correct name, then, is *Brodiaea coronaria* Jepson, *[n. comb.](/source/N._comb.)*"

Names that had previously been [conserved](/source/Conserved_name) to improve the stability of well-known plant names often now no longer required conservation, and other names that had been formed using the Kew Rule and had become well known, were illegitimate. The entire previous list of conserved and rejected names was consequently replaced in 1959 with a reworked list.[8]

Previously overlooked botanical literature has continued to yield new examples of forgotten older names for more than 100 years since the Kew Rule was banished from the International Code of Nomenclature.[2]

## References

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-chron_1-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-chron_1-1) ["Index Kewensis chronology"](http://www.ipni.org/IK_chronology.html). International Plant Names Index. 2008.

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-Reveal_2-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-Reveal_2-1) ["Understanding the Index Kewensis data"](http://www.ipni.org/understand_the_data.html). International Plant Names Index. 2004.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-3)** Reveal, J.L. (2012). ["A divulgation of ignored or forgotten binomials"](http://www.phytoneuron.net/PhytoN-Divulgation.pdf) (PDF). *Phytoneuron*. 2012–28 (1–64).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-4)** McNeill, J.; Barrie, F.R.; Buck, W.R.; Demoulin, V.; Greuter, W.; Hawksworth, D.L.; Herendeen, P.S.; Knapp, S.; Marhold, K.; Prado, J.; Prud'homme Van Reine, W.F.; Smith, G.F.; Wiersema, J.H.; Turland, N.J. (2012). [*International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code) adopted by the Eighteenth International Botanical Congress Melbourne, Australia, July 2011*](http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art11). Vol. Regnum Vegetabile 154. A.R.G. Gantner Verlag KG. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-3-87429-425-6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-3-87429-425-6).

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-Nicolson_5-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-Nicolson_5-1) Nicolson, D.H. (1991). ["A History of Botanical Nomenclature"](https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/part/35570). *Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden*. **78** (1): 33–56. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.2307/2399589](https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2399589). [JSTOR](/source/JSTOR_(identifier)) [2399589](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2399589).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-6)** Trimen, H. (1877). ["Editor's response to A. de Candolle's letter to the journal on the subject of Botanical Nomenclature"](https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/108518#page/254/mode/1up). *Journal of Botany*. **15**: 242–243.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-7)** Jepson, W. L. (1917). ["Taxonomic notes on California plants"](https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/132036#page/83/mode/1up). *Madroño*. **1**: 61–62.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-8)** Rickett, H.W.; Stafleu, F.A. (1959). ["Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda spermatophytorum"](http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/572525). *Taxon*. **8** (7): 213–243. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.2307/1217883](https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1217883). [JSTOR](/source/JSTOR_(identifier)) [1217883](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1217883).

v t e Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Locations Kew Gardens Wakehurst Bedgebury National Pinetum Kew Madagascar Conservation Centre Yorkshire Arboretum Buildings Cambridge Cottage Kew Herbarium Kew Palace Temperate House Palm House Great Pagoda Queen Charlotte's Cottage History Curators of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Directors of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Kew Gardens (Leases) Act 2019 Botany eMonocot Hortus Kewensis Index Kewensis International Plant Names Index The Plant List Plants of the World Online World Checklist of Selected Plant Families GrassBase World Flora Online Index Fungorum Other The Great Plant Hunt Kew Bulletin Kew Constabulary Kew Gardens (short story) Kew Gardens: The Pagoda and Bridge Kew International Medal Kew Rule Kingdom of Plants 3D Millennium Seed Bank Partnership UK Native Seed Hub The Queen's Beasts Curtis's Botanical Magazine

---
Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Kew Rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kew_Rule) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kew_Rule?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.