Article 41 Ex. 17 and 19 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) imply that errors in the citation of the date or place of publication of the basionym do not prevent valid publication of a new combination. Some action is needed to support the correction of incorrect dates.

The valid publication of a new combination must state five items: the basionym, its author citation, its place of valid publication, the page or plate reference, and the date (Art. 41.5). Article 41.6 states that errors in the “citation of the basionym or replaced synonym, including incorrect author citation” do not preclude valid publication; it does not mention the place, page/plate or date of publication.

There are two arguments that would allow correction of a date. While “citation of the basionym” is widely recognized to mean quoting the basionym, it could be interpreted to include bibliographic references. A second argument is that date errors can be corrected because nothing prohibits their correction. If either is correct, then both incorrect page numbers and places of publication (as long as they do not reference another real work) are correctable. Article 41 Ex. 15 would be wrong because page references would be correctable. As to the latter argument, nothing prohibited the correction of a holotype citation, yet Art. 9.2 was added to support Art. 9 Ex. 3.

Therefore, Art. 41 Ex. 17 and 19 appear to be wrong. However, it would be horribly disruptive to not permit correction of incorrect dates given that the actual date of publication for many older works differs from its stated date.

Articles 41.5 and 41.6 are presumably “open to divergent interpretation or [do] not adequately cover the matter” (Art. 7 *Ex. 16 footnote); a regular Example, as opposed to a voted Example, does not have the force of a rule in that case. Converting Ex. 17 into a voted Example would have the force of a rule and permit correction of dates.

第四十一条 《深圳守则》第17和19条（Turland等人于Regnum Veg.159.2018中）暗示引用该基础名称的发布日期或地点时出现错误不会妨碍新组合的有效发布。需要采取一些措施来支持更正不正确的日期。

新组合的有效发布必须声明五个项目：基本名称，其作者引用，有效发布的位置，页面或标牌的引用以及日期（第41.5条）。第41.6条规定，“基础名称或替代同义词的引用，包括错误的作者引用”中的错误并不排除有效的发表；它没有提及地点，页面/铭牌或出版日期。

有两个参数可以更正日期。尽管“基础名称的引用”被广泛认为是引用基础名称，但可以将其解释为包括书目参考。第二个论点是日期错误可以纠正，因为没有什么可以阻止其纠正。如果任何一个正确，则错误的页码和发布位置（只要它们不引用其他实际作品）都是可以纠正的。第四十一条 15将是错误的，因为页面引用将是可纠正的。至于后一种说法，没有什么能阻止对同型引文的更正。9.2已添加以支持Art。9例 3。

因此，艺术。41例 17和19似乎是错误的。但是，鉴于许多较早的作品的实际出版日期与声明的日期不同，不允许更正错误的日期将造成极大的破坏。

第41.5和41.6条大概是“对分歧的解释持开放态度，或[没有]充分涵盖此事”（第7条*例16脚注）；与表决的示例相反，常规示例在这种情况下没有规则的效力。转换前 将17放入已表决的示例将具有规则的效力并允许更正日期。