There are a number of minor inconsistencies in the rules for neotypes in the Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). This proposal is designed to address these inconsistencies.

Article 9.8 refers to “selection” of a specimen as neotype, but “designation” is the appropriate term. In addition, while a neotype can be designated if the original material is “missing”, the lectotype rules (Art. 9.3 and 9.11) refer to “lost or destroyed”, which is preferable. Finally, there is no provision to allow designation of a new neotype if the existing one is lost or destroyed or if the prior neotype belongs to more than one taxon, as is the case for lectotypes (Art. 9.11).

《守则》中有关新类型的规则中存在一些细微的不一致之处（Turland等人，Regnum Veg。159. 2018）。本提案旨在解决这些不一致之处。

第9.8条将标本的“选择”称为新类型，但“名称”是适当的术语。另外，如果原始材料是“缺失”的，则可以指定一个新的类型，但电选型规则（第9.3和9.11条）是指“丢失或破坏”，这是可取的。最后，如果现有的新类型丢失或被破坏，或者先前的新类型属于一个以上的分类群，则没有规定允许指定新的新类型（如电选类型）（第9.11条）。