In the protologue of Polypodium platylobum Baker (in Hooker & Baker, Syn. Fil.: 307. 1867), the author presented, just after the species description, the following citation of a gathering: “Hab. Tarapota, N. E. Peru, Spruce, 4656.” Subsequently, 124 years later in Pteridophyta of Peru, Tryon & Stolze (in Fieldiana, Bot., n.s., 27: 15. 1991) published the following nomenclatural paragraph for this name:

“Polypodium platylobum Baker, Syn. fil. 307. 1867. TYPE: Mt. Guayrapurima, near Tarapoto (San Martín), Spruce 4656 (holotype, K!; isotypes, BM!, K!, P!).”

An experienced nomenclaturist will notice two things about the kinds of types cited by Tryon & Stolze (l.c.). First, the name was published in 1867, long before the type method became common practice. Baker, when he cited the entire gathering “Spruce, 4656” in the protologue, did not mention “type” or anything that would have designated a holotype, as the subsequent paragraph by Tryon & Stolze appears to claim. Second, there are four specimens of the gathering by Spruce, each in different herbaria. That means there are four syntypes, not a holotype and its isotypes (Art. 9.6 of the Shenzhen Code – Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018).

An experienced nomenclaturist will also note that the paragraph by Tryon & Stolze lectotypified the name, although nowhere is this evident in the paragraph itself. By citing (even incorrectly) Spruce 4656 at K as the “holotype”, that specimen must be treated as the lectotype under Art. 7.11 (cf. Ex. 13) and Art. 9.10 (cf. Ex. 11) of the Shenzhen Code. Note that it was never the intent of Tryon & Stolze to lectotypify, but that is exactly what happened according to the current rules of the Code.

Instances such as the above are common for many early names that were based on syntypes or uncited original material. These names were often lectotypified unknowingly when a later author cited one of the syntypes (or uncited specimens) as “type” or “holotype”. Much less often, names were neotypified when there was no original material but a specimen wrongly believed to be such was designated as “type” or “holotype” (see Art. 7 Ex. 14). The specimen cited was usually one present in the describing author's herbarium or home institution.

Accordingly, lectotypifications and neotypifications may be achieved in two ways. First, before 1 January 2001, they may be achieved non‐explicitly, as in the above example. Second, on or after 1 January 2001, they must be achieved explicitly by stating “lectotypus” or “neotypus” (see Art. 9.23) and “designated here” (see Art. 7.11) or equivalents of these words (e.g. abbreviations or in other languages).

The above example—and thousands like it—cause confusion in two ways. First, the incorrect kind of type (by today's definitions) is accepted, not corrected, by later taxonomists. Second, the lecto‐ or neotypification is overlooked by taxonomists because it was made non‐explicitly, without the conspicuous “designated here” or equivalent. This oversight may result in a new and superfluous lecto‐ or neotypification. Unfortunately, both confusions tend to be perpetuated in monographs, floras, and databases.

To avoid this situation, it would be helpful to have a term that brings attention to non‐explicit lecto‐ and neotypifications. Accordingly, we propose the term “non‐explicit typification”. It should help bring attention to this often overlooked manner of lectotypification and (to a far lesser degree) neotypification, not only for a particular name, but also for names in general.

作者在鸭嘴兽Polypodium platylobum Baker（Hooker＆Baker，Syn。Fil .: 307. 1867）的原始序言中，在物种描述之后，提出了以下采集的引文：秘鲁东北部塔拉波塔，云杉，4656。” 随后，124年后，Tryon＆Stolze在秘鲁的蕨类植物中（位于美国田纳西州菲尔德安娜，ns，27：15. 1991）发表了该名称的以下命名法段落：

“鸭嘴兽（Polypodium platylobum Baker），Syn。fil。307。1867年。类型：山 塔拉波托（圣马丁）附近的Guayrapurima，云杉4656（整型，K ！；同型，BM！，K！，P！）。”

有经验的术语学家会注意到Tryon＆Stolze（lc）引用的类型的两件事。首先，该名称于1867年发布，远远早于类型方法成为惯例。贝克在整个序言中将整个聚会标为“云杉，4656”时，并未提及“类型”或任何将其指定为整型的字样，因为随后的Tryon＆Stolze段落似乎声称。其次，有四个云杉采集的标本，每个标本都在不同的草本植物中。这意味着存在四种同型，而不是全型及其同型（《深圳法规》第9.6条– Turland等人，Regnum Veg。159. 2018）。

一位经验丰富的术语学家也将注意到，Tryon＆Stolze的段落对名称起了典型作用，尽管该段落本身没有任何明显之处。通过引用（甚至错误地）将K处的云杉4656称为“原型”，该标本必须根据Art视为原型。7.11（比照实施例13）和Art。深圳守则第9.10条（比照实施例11）。请注意，Tryon＆Stolze从来都不打算进行选型，但这恰恰是根据《守则》的现行规则发生的。

对于许多基于同型或未引用原始材料的早期名称来说，上述情况很常见。当后来的作者将同种型（或未引用的标本）之一称为“类型”或“整型”时，这些名字常常在不知不觉中被电化。当没有原始材料但被错误地认为是原样的标本被指定为“类型”或“整型”时，名称通常会被重新命名（见第7条第14款）。引用的标本通常是描述作者的植物标本室或家庭机构中的标本。

因此，可以两种方式实现电化和新化。首先，如上例所示，在2001年1月1日之前，可能无法实现这些目标。第二，必须在2001年1月1日当天或之后，明确指出“电烙铁虫”或“新typtypus”（见第9.23条）和“在此指定”（见第7.11条）或这些词的等价物（例如缩写或其他语言）。

上面的示例（以及成千上万的示例）以两种方式引起混乱。首先，后来的分类学家接受了不正确类型的类型（按照今天的定义），而不是予以纠正。其次，分类学学家忽视了电声或新类型化，因为它是非明确地进行的，没有明显的“在此指定”或等同形式。这种疏忽可能导致新的多余的电气或新类型化。不幸的是，这两种混淆往往都存在于专着，植物志和数据库中。

为了避免这种情况，最好使用一个术语来引起人们注意非显性的电化和新类型化。因此，我们建议使用“非明确类型”。它应该有助于引起人们对这种经常被忽视的电化和（在较小程度上）新化的关注，不仅针对特定名称，而且还针对一般名称。