Typification of three Rataj’s names in the genus Echinodorus (Alismataceae) Author Somogyi, Jozef text Phytotaxa 2019 2019-05-16 404 1 63 64 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.404.1.7 journal article 10.11646/phytotaxa.404.1.7 1179-3163 Echinodorus multiflorus Rataj (1989: 23–25) Holotype : nonexistent, but indicated in the protologue (see Somogyi 2017 ). In this context, it is remarkable that according to the protologue the holotype is a herbarium specimen; later Rataj wrote that the holotype of this name consists of photographs ( Rataj 2004: 96 ). Lectotype (designated here): photograph in Rataj (1989: 23) . This photograph can also be seen in Rataj (2004: 97 , Fig. 2). No living plants or herbarium specimens of this species are available, therefore it is not possible to designate an epitype . The interpretation of this name remains unclear because the lectotype photograph (as well as all other published photographs of E. multiflorus ) is ambiguous and cannot be critically identified (the details necessary for correct identification are not visible) for purposes of the precise application of the name to a taxon. Therefore, this name was not typified by Somogyi (2017: 17) and none of the published photographs of E. multiflorus was designated as a neotype . In this context, it should be noted that the type of a name of a new species or infraspecific taxon may be an illustration prior to 1 January 2007 ; on or after that date, the type must be a specimen (Art. 40.4 of the Shenzhen Code). Somogyi (2017: 17 , 20) also added a reference to this rule (Art. 40.4 of the Melbourne Code) as additional information in connection with E. multiflorus and Echinodorus veronikae Rataj (1988: 30) .