According to Art. 9 Ex. 14 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), a second‐step lectotype could be designated when a single gathering in a single herbarium was designated as a lectotype and later found to be more than one specimen. However, this Example does not illustrate that, prior to 1 January 1990, lectotypification or neotypification of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon by a specimen or unpublished illustration could be effective even when the herbarium, collection, or institution in which the type is conserved was not specified; see Art. 9.22.

If a first‐step lectotype or neotype designated prior to 1 January 1990 refers to a single gathering distributed in multiple herbaria, the choice of the second‐step lectotype or neotype depends on the designating author(s), who are free to choose a single specimen from any of those herbaria. There is no such Example under Art. 9.17 in the Code, so we are proposing to add one, as follows.

根据艺术。9例 根据深圳法典第14条（Turland等人，在Regnum Veg.159.2018）中，如果将单个植物标本室中的单个集合指定为选型，后来又发现有多个标本，则可以指定第二步选型。但是，此示例并未说明，在1990年1月1日之前，即使标本馆，馆藏或所在类型的机构为标本，也没有标本或未发表的插图对物种名称或特定物种分类进行电化或新化。未指定保守的；见艺术。9.22。

如果在1990年1月1日之前指定的第一步选型或新型是指分布在多个草丛中的单个集会，则选择第二步选型或新型取决于指定作者，作者可以自由选择一个那些草标本的标本。Art下没有此类示例。《守则》中的9.17 ，因此我们建议添加如下内容。