The Nordic Journal of Botany is a well-known outlet for taxonomic studies, including descriptions of new species and flora checklists. Authors submitting manuscripts of taxonomic studies must follow the below guidelines. Manuscripts not conforming to this formatting requirements will be returned without review.

You may use this template to structure your taxonomic manuscript. Simply remove the exampel text and add your own text for each section. If a heading does not apply to your study, you may remove it, but do not change the order of the headings.

KEYS

Dichotomous keys are preferred, and each couplet should be noted by a number as in this example:
 

1   Inflorescence lax, paniculate; stem subterete; leaves flat……………..……………………………………......................... 2
–  Inflorescence dense; stem and leaves externally very similar………………………………………………………..……...... 3
2  Flowers mauve .......................................................................................................................................... 15. B. lilacina
–  Flowers yellow.......................................................................................……......................................... 14. B. paniculata

DIAGNOSES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW TAXA

Validating diagnoses and descriptions may be written in English or Latin as stipulated by the the International Code for Nomenclature of algae, fungi and plants. A format with a short diagnosis including only those characters essential for the identification of the taxon followed by a full morphological description is preferred. Descriptions of new taxa of fungi have to include an identifier issued by a recognised repository such as MycoBank.

 

TYPE MATERIAL
Nomenclatural types should be referred to with appropriate terminology in accordance with the International Code for Nomenclature of algae, fungi and plants. Provide bibliographic references for lectotypifications, neotypifications and epitypifications, when appropriate.

 

HERBARIUM ACRONYMS
Registered public herbaria should be referred to by the acronyms included in Index Herbariorum. Herbaria not included in Index Herbariorum should be referred to by their full name

 

STRICT NOMENCLATURAL ACCOUNTS

Names of taxa
As exemplified below, start a nomenclatural account with the accepted name and its nomenclatural reference on the first line. On the next line, list any other names based on the same nomenclatural type as the accepted name, in chronological order, followed by an indication of their type. Then, in separate paragraphs for each group of names based on one and the same type, list taxonomic synonyms sorted chronologically. Within each paragraph, start with the earliest homotypic name, followed by nomenclatural synonyms in chronological order and with a reference to the type at the end. If needed for clarity, invalid names may be included and should then be inserted in the chronological order and followed by the words “nom. inval.". Misapplied names may be listed after the synonymy, either with the qualification "sensu" and "non auct.", or just "auct.". ICN articles, recommendations, and notes should be referenced at the end of a citation for illegitimate and invalidly published names, e.g., "nom. illeg. [ICN Art. 52.1]" for a nomenclaturally superfluous name. Similar references may be inserted conservatively in other cases where clarity is needed regarding, e.g., author citation or spelling. Verbal explanations should be avoided in the nomenclatural accounts and are better placed in a separate nomenclature section.

Genus names should not be abbreviated. Each name should be cited with authors abbreviated according to IPNI (note the absence of space between surnames and initials). If an author of a name treated as a fungus is not in the IPNI database, follow Index Fungorum. If the name of an author is not in IPNI nor in Index Fungorum, abbreviate authors according to IPNI principles. Genus and species authorships are not to be used in infrageneric and infraspecific names. The taxon name, including its authorship, should be followed by a bibliographic reference to the place of publication, including page, placed in brackets and formatted like any other reference in the manuscript. Include such bibliographic references in the reference list. If the place of publication is an exsiccate, the number in the exsiccate may be cited instead of the page. Do not use “=” or “≡” to indicate taxonomic or nomenclatural synonyms.

Types and other specimens examined
Types may be cited at the end of each paragraph if designated by the present or previous authors, separated from synonymy by a long dash. Otherwise, types should be indicated by a reference to the original material as indicated in the protologue. Extensive lists of original material or syntypes for taxa that have not been lectotypified are better listed as specimens examined in a separate section at the end of the species account or as Supplementary Material. For both types and other specimens examined, if known, provide present-day country name according to the ISO 3166-1 numeric standard. It is recommended to also add major territorial subdivisions, for example according to botanical tradition or ISO 3166-2. Further hierarchical subdivisions down to, e.g., parish or county may be used if desired. Cite the locality and, optionally, habitat and substrate as provided on the specimen label. This information should, as far as possible, be followed by coordinates (specify system and map datum if not latitude-longitude WGS 84), elevation expressed as metres above sea level (“elev. 1200 m"), collecting date (with months abbreviated in English according to Library of Congress style, e.g. "12 Sept. 2014" and "7 May 2020"), collector’s name with first name(s) as initials (separated by spaces), and collector’s number (all in regular font). At the end of a type citation, cite (within brackets) type category, herbarium and (when available) herbarium accession number or barcode, and bibliographic reference for lecto-, neo- and epitypes). Do not use “!” to indicate that a specimen has been seen. Instead, assume that all specimens mentioned have been seen unless the words “not seen” are added (e.g., “holotype: TUR-V 23223, not seen”, if this specimen had not been seen by any of the authors of the paper). If a specimen is part of an exsiccate, indicate this with “in” and the publisher(s) name and the name of the exsiccate abbreviated according to IndExs immediately following the collector’s name (e.g., “A. B. Massalongo in Anzi, Lich. Rar. Langob. Exs., no. 434”). Corrections, comments and clarifications inside the type citation may be added within square brackets, e.g., “Type: Germany, Bayern, “Eichstaedt” [= Eichstätt]…”. When the author deems it important to the interpretation, quotation marks may be used to highlight parts of a specimen citation that were copied verbatim from the specimen label (rather than interpreted or translated by the author).

For names treated as fungi, follow the most recent version of ICN Art. F5 and include identifiers from recognized repositories for nomenclatural novelties in the nomenclatural accounts, e.g. “Bacidia deludens S.Ekman, Tønsberg & van den Boom sp. nov. (Fig. 3, 4), MB#836877” or “Type: Finland, … (lectotype: TUR-V 25080, designated here, MBT#10001187)”. It is acceptable to include identifiers even when a name or typification is not novel, e.g. “Lecidea endoleucoides Nyl. in Kremp. (Krempelhuber 1868, p. 234), MB#390568” or “Type: Finland, … (lectotype: TUR-V 25080, designated by Svensson and Owe-Larsson 2021, p. 2, MBT#10001187)”.

 

Here are three more complete examples, modified from Svensson and Owe-Larsson (2021):

Lecidea albofuscescens Nyl. (Nylander 1867, p. 370)
Biatora albofuscescens (Nyl.) Arnold (Arnold 1871, p. 476). – Type: Finland, Etelä-Häme, “Evois, ad cort. abietis”, 1866, J.P. Norrlin (lectotype: H-NYL 20725, designated by Printzen 1995, p. 156; isolectotype H9511557).
          Lecidea dolera Nyl. (Nylander 1873b, p. 20). Bacidia dolera (Nyl.) Forssell & Blomb. (Forssell and Blomberg 1880, p. 81). – Type: Finland, Pohjois-Häme, ”Pihlajavesi”, 1871, J. P. Norrlin (syntype or holotype: H-NYL 17948).
          Lecidea albofuscescens subsp. mustialensis Vain. (Vainio 1934, p. 357). Lecidea mustialensis (Vain.) Zahlbr. (Zahlbruckner 1939, p. 339). – Type: Finland, Etelä-Häme, “Tammela, Mustiala, ad corticem trunci Abietis excelsae”, 1868, A. Kullhem (holotype: TUR-V 23223).

Micarea subnigrata (Nyl.) Coppins & H.Kilias (Kilias 1981, p. 391)
Lecidea subnigrata Nyl. (Nylander 1866, p. 370). Biatorina subnigrata (Nyl.) Arnold (Arnold 1871, p. 474). Catillaria subnigrata (Nyl.) Herre (Herre 1910, p. 94). – Type: United Kingdom, Wales, Merioneth, Cader Idris, 1866, W. A. Leighton (lectotype: H-NYL 19136 = H 9510510, designated by Kilias 1981, p. 391, see ICN Art. 9.10; isolectotypes: BM, not seen, UPS).
         Lecidea frustulenta H.Magn. (Magnusson 1955, p. 295). – Type: Sweden, Västergötland, Råda par., Mölnlycke, to the south, on steep rock near the road, 8 May 1927, A. H. Magnusson 10380 (holotype: UPS L-108146).

Rhizocarpon richardii (Lamy ex Nyl.) Zahlbr. (Zahlbruckner 1926, p. 341)
Lecidea richardii Lamy ex Nyl. (Nylander 1875a, p. 446, as ‘richardi’). Buellia richardii (Lamy ex Nyl.) H.Olivier (Olivier 1901, p. 162). Buellia atroalba var. richardii (Lamy ex Nyl.) Boistel (Boistel 1903, p. 238). Rhizocarpon constrictum subsp. richardii (Lamy ex Nyl.) Clauzade & Cl.Roux (Clauzade and Roux 1985, p. 828). – Type: France, Deux-Sèvres, “La Mothe – St Hèraye”, 1876, O. J. Richard (neotype: H-NYL 10085 = H 9508823, designated by Laundon 1986, p. 173).
          Lecidea aviaria Vain. (Vainio 1934, p. 84). – Type: Finland, Uusimaa, Ingå, Blåskär, [illegible] … litoral fågeltopp, 9 Aug. 1920, W. Brenner (holotype: TUR-V 24151, TLC: gyrophoric acid).

 

REFERENCES IN NOMENCLATURAL ACCOUNTS
Full and direct citations should only be used when needed to fulfill the requirements for valid publication of new names, and also such references should be included in the list of references. In all other cases, only author, year and page number (if considered appropriate) should be given, i.e. ”Larix sibirica Ledeb. (1833 p. 204)” or ”Larix sibirica Ledeb. (1833)”, NOT ”Larix sibirica Ledeb., Flora Altaica 4: 204. 1833”.

 

INDEX TO SCIENTIFIC NAMES
In larger taxonomic works, an index to scientific names should be provided.