The following is an ASCII representation of selections from the Report on
the meetings of the Nomenclature Section of the XV IBC and from the
Preface to the new International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. As a
consequence there is some repetition. A WordPerfect (5.1/5.2) file (with
correct diacritical signs etc.) is also available. This is coded by
uuencode and is available on request; it can be decoded using uudecode
(or automatically by certain mailers, e.g. Lotus's Cc:Mail).
John McNeill -- john@rom.on.ca
XV INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL CONGRESS: Summary Report of Congress Action on
Nomenclatural Proposals and on the resultant edition of the International
Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) -- the Tokyo Code.
John McNeill
Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2C6,
Canada.
Congress Action on Nomenclatural Proposals:
The Section on Nomenclature of the XV International Botanical Congress
met in the Congress Center of Pacifico, Yokohama, Japan on Monday, 23
August at 10 a.m., and at 9 a.m. daily thereafter until Friday, 27
August. The sessions continued until around 6.00 p.m. each day, except
on Thursday and Friday, 26 and 27 August when they concluded around 12.30
p.m. -- on the Thursday for Committee meetings and for the General
Assembly of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy, and on the
Friday at the conclusion of the business of the Section.
The Bureau of Nomenclature (see Division III of the Code) comprised the
Rapporteur-ge'ne'ral, Professor Dr Werner Greuter (Berlin, Germany),
appointed by the XIV Congress in Berlin in 1987, and the following,
appointed by the Organizing Committee of XV Congress, the President, Dr
Herve' Burdet (Gen`eve, Switzerland), the Vice-Rapporteur, Professor John
McNeill (Toronto, Canada), and the Recorder, Dr Zennoski Iwatsuki
(Hiroshima, Japan). In addition, four vice-presidents were appointed by
the Section: Professor William G. Chaloner (London, U.K.), Professor Knut
Faegri (Bergen, Norway), Dr Kunio Iwatsuki (Tokyo, Japan), and Dr Dan H.
Nicolson (Washington, U.S.A.),
The Section approved the "Berlin Code" as published as the basis of its
deliberations. For the revised Code arising from this Congress, the
Editorial Committee was given the usual power to alter wording, examples,
or location of Articles and Recommendations in so far as the meaning was
not affected, but was requested to retain the present numbering in so far
as possible.
The Section adopted the now traditional procedures of requiring a 60%
majority of the votes cast for any proposal to amend the Code to be
accepted, and of not considering any proposal which received more than
75% 'No' votes in the Preliminary Mail Ballot. In addition it approved a
new procedure by which any new proposal or any attempt to debate a
proposal rejected by 75% of the mail ballot, would require the support of
the lesser of 5 individuals or 35 institutional votes.
In general, the Section followed the sequence of the Code, in considering
amendment proposals. One of the major issues being considered by the
Section was the concept of Names in Current Use (NCU), providing for the
protection of listed names against any competing names that were not
included on the relevant list. The general principles were debated on
the morning of Monday 23 August (at the point of consideration of General
Proposals Prop. C) but voting on the issue was deferred until
consideration of proposals on Article 15bis on Tuesday, 24 August. The
proposals on Art. 15bis were divided into five groups for the purposes of
discussion: the first, Props. A & W (with Rec. 15bisA Prop. A) being the
"package" necessary to incorporate the principle in the Code, the second
(Prop. B) to determine the coverage in terms of ranks, the third (Props.
C,D,F,L,P & R) the minimum additional proposals required to implement the
list of family names for which support had been expressed, and the fourth
(Props. G,H & J) completing the NCU proposals. The fifth group,
independent of NCU's, dealt with sanctioning of fungal names.
After full debate on the NCU issue, which reflected the mail ballot in
that the greatest support for the principle came from European and
Australian botanists (as well as from mycologists) and the greatest
opposition from North American ones, the Section failed to accept Art.
15bis Prop. A on a card vote, the majority in favour being only 54.9%.
The other proposals on NCU's that involved amendment to the Code were
withdrawn, but on returning to General Proposals Prop. C, the Section
resolved by a simple majority on a card vote to establish a Standing
Committee on Names in Current Use to report to subsequent Congresses. At
a later session it also took note of the significance of the list of
names of Trichocomaceae, including Penicillium and Aspergillus (see
below)
Proposals to permit nomina specifica conservanda go back to the Stockholm
Congress of 1950. Limited provisions for conservation of species name
entered the Code in Sydney in 1981, and a further but still very
restricted category was added in Berlin in 1987. One of the most notable
developments in the Tokyo Congress was the acceptance (through Art. 14
Prop. B) of unrestricted conservation of species names by an overwhelming
majority on a show of hands!
Article 69 has provided, since the Leningrad Congress in 1975, for
rejection of any name that "has been widely and persistently used for a
taxon or taxa not including its type"; since Sydney such names have
required to be proposed for inclusion on a list of nomina rejicienda.
Paralleling the wider scope for conservation of species names, the Tokyo
Congress adopted, again overwhelmingly on a show of hands, Art. 69 Prop.
B (slightly amended), permitting the rejection under this Article of "any
name that would cause disadvantageous nomenclatural change".
Attempts to deal with criteria for effective publication, in the light of
technological changes in publishing procedures and the proliferation of
media for publication, led to proposals to the Berlin Congress in 1987 to
establish Registration procedures; these were referred to a Special
Committee which reported to the Tokyo Congress. Its key proposal (Art.
42 Prop. B) was accepted in an amended form delaying introduction of
registration of names as a requirement for valid publication until 1
January 2000, and requiring endorsement of this provision by the XVI
Botanical Congress, scheduled to be held in 1999. This would ensure
implementation of registration as a prerequisite for valid publication
only if adequate mechanisms were in place by that time.
Recognizing that technological change will undoubtedly lead to even
greater changes in publishing and other practices relevant to botanical
nomenclature, the Section accepted a proposal to establish a Special
Committee "to examine the impacts of electronic publishing and data-
basing on the Code and to make proposals to the next Botanical Congress".
Other decisions of note included the acceptance (on a card vote with a
62% majority) of the use of Phylum as an alternative term for Divisio.
This is an issue that has been debated for the past three Congresses; the
current proposal was more practical (in dealing with names in those few
works that use both terms) that its predecessors, but the majority was
nevertheless still slender. The provisions for "in" and "ex" author
citations (principally in Article 46) have long been recognized as
confusing; the two sets of partially overlapping proposals to address
this question were reviewed by an ad hoc committee that met during the
week; the committee's revised set of proposals to resolve the issue were
accepted by the Section. The proposal that English be accepted as an
alternative to Latin for the diagnoses of new taxa in all groups was
again overwhelmingly rejected, but an amendment establishing this
provision for fossil plants was accepted. This is a restrictive
provision, in that from 1 January 1996, a new taxon of fossil plants must
have a Latin or English description or diagnosis to be validly published,
whereas, prior to that date, descriptions or diagnoses in any language
are acceptable.
In all the Section resolved to establish six Committees to report to the
XVI International Congress to be held in St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A. in
1999. These committees, whose membership will be determined by the
General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature, are: the Standing Committee
on Names in Current Use and the Special Committees on Electronic
Publishing and Databases, on Harmonization of Codes, on Hybrids, on
Lectotypification, and on Orthography.
In the final session on the morning of Friday, 27 August, the Section
expressed its strong commitment to nomenclatural stability in adopting by
an overwhelming majority on a show of hands a resolution with the
following effect: "While work continues to find further ways to reduce
changes of well-established names, such names should not be displaced for
purely nomenclatural reasons, whether by change in their application, or
by resurrection of long-forgotten names."
It also specifically recognized the status of the NCU list of
Trichocomaceae by adopting the following resolution: "The Nomenclature
Section, noting that the List of Names in Current Use for the
Trichocomaceae, which has already been approved by the International
Commission on Penicillium and Aspergillus and by the International Union
of Microbiological Sciences (IUMS), urges taxonomists not to adopt names
that would compete with or change the application of any names on that
list."
The Section also took note of the increased scope for conservation and
rejection of names in the following terms: "The Section urges the
General Committee and through it all Permanent Committees to make full
use of the options that the Code now provides in order to ensure
nomenclatural clarity and stability."
The reports of the Permanent Committees for Algae, Bryophyta, Fossil
Plants, Fungi, Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta were presented and
approved. The Report of the General Committee was approved including the
recommendations for nomina conservanda and nomina rejicienda as published
by the Secretary, D. H. Nicolson, in Taxon 42: 435-446 (May 1993), with
additions, approved by the General Committee meeting in Yokohama, to be
published in a later issue of Taxon.
Nominations to the Permanent Nomenclatural Committees and to the office
of Rapporteur-ge'ne'ral (see Division III of the Code) were approved as
proposed by a Nominating Committee appointed by the Section (see report
in Taxon 42: 923-924 (1993).
The Final Plenary Session of the full Congress, in accepting the
decisions of the Nomenclature Section, also took note of the Section's
concern for and progress toward greater stability in botanical
nomenclature, in accepting unanimously the following resolution:
"Considering the great importance of a stable system of scientific names
of plants for use in the pure and applied sciences and in many other
domains of public life and economy;
noting with satisfaction recent important improvements in the
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and ongoing efforts to
explore new avenues for increased stability and security in the
application of plant names;
the XV International Botanical Congress urges plant taxonomists, while
such work continues, to avoid displacing well established names for
purely nomenclatural reasons, whether by change in their application of
by resurrection of long-forgotten names;
resolves that the decisions of the Nomenclature Section with respect to
the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, as well as the
appointment of officers and members of the nomenclature committees, made
by that section during its meetings, 22~27 August, be accepted."
New edition of the ICBN -- the Tokyo Code
The new edition of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, the
"Tokyo Code", is significantly different from its immediate predecessors.
There are two reasons for this difference: one relates to the arrangement
of the book and the other to its content.
Considering arrangement first, the Tokyo Congress agreed to delete the
major part of Chapter V dealing with "Retention, choice, and rejection of
names and epithets", transferring such material as was not already
covered elsewhere in the Code to other articles, notably Art. 11. With
five other Articles deleted from the latter part of the Code at previous
Congresses (two in Leningrad in 1975, one in Sydney in 1981, and two in
Berlin in 1987), only 11 Articles remained in the Code following Art. 50,
yet the numbering extended to 76. For this reason and because a
completely new subject index was being prepared for the new edition, the
Editorial Committee decided that a renumbering of the Articles in the
latter part of the "Tokyo Code" was essential for clarity. This
renumbering was executed in the spirit of the Nomenclature Section's
usual instruction "to preserve the numbering of Articles and
Recommendations in so far as possible", in that only the Articles
following Art. 50 have been renumbered, and, by a rearrangement of the
ordering of the Articles, the commonly cited Art. 59, on names of fungi
with a pleomorphic life cycle, has retained its traditional number. The
final Article is now Art. 62, an extra Article having been created by the
division of the old Art. 69 (see below).
The Editorial Committee also took the opportunity to clarify the rules on
typification and effective publication by creating a more logical
arrangement of Arts. 7-10 and 29-31, respectively. Art. 7 now deals with
general matters of typification, Art. 8 with typification of names of
species and infraspecific taxa, Art. 9 with the various categories of
types applicable to such names, and Art. 10 with the typification of
supraspecific names. Art. 29 now deals with the general issue of
effective publication, Art. 30 with special cases, and Art. 31 with the
date of effective publication.
Among the more familiar Articles whose numbering has changed are the
former Art. 63 on superfluous names, which is now Art. 52, and the former
Art. 69 on nomina rejicienda, which now forms Arts. 56 and 57 (see
below). A Table is provided comparing the numbering of all Articles and
Recommendations between the "Tokyo Code" and the "Berlin Code" and also
the paragraphs within Articles and Recommendations where these have
changed between the two Codes. The numbering of the Articles remained
virtually unchanged between the "Seattle Code" adopted in 1969 and the
"Berlin Code". The "Seattle Code" includes a "Key to the numbering of
the Articles and Recommendations" for the five editions of the Code from
Stockholm (1952) to Seattle (1972), and the "Stock-holm Code" includes a
similar key comparing its arrangement with that of the "Cambridge Rules"
(1935).
As was the case with the "Berlin Code", the text of the new edition of
the Code is in English only, reflecting a decision made at the Berlin
Congress in 1987. French, German, and Japanese editions of the text of
the "Berlin Code" were produced separately and it is anticipated that at
least French and German editions of the "Tokyo Code" will be prepared.
As noted above, the Tokyo Congress was noteworthy in that conservation of
species names and rejection of any name that would cause a
disadvantageous nomenclatural change were both accepted by an
overwhelming majority on a show of hands. Those who remember the narrow
majorities by which conservation of names of species of major economic
importance and names which represent the type of a conserved generic name
were approved at Sydney and Berlin, respectively, will recognize the
fundamental change that took place in botanical nomenclature at Yokohama.
The Code is no longer a handicap but an encouragement to the maintenance
of nomenclatural stability.
The restrictions on conservation of specific names have, therefore, been
removed from Art. 14.2, and conservation of the names of species, as for
families and genera, now simply "aims at retention of those names which
best serve stability of nomenclature". With the adoption by the Tokyo
Congress of an amendment to the former Art. 69 that would permit the
rejection of any name "that would cause a disadvantageous nomenclatural
change", the Article came to cover two distinctly different situations
and has been divided into two. The first, the new Art. 56, deals with
the general case (i.e. any disadvantageous nomenclatural change) and
includes the mechanisms by which names can be rejected as in the previous
Art. 69.2. The second, the new Art. 57, relates to the more restricted
case, to which the former Art. 69 was hitherto confined, i.e. names that
have been widely and persistently used for a taxon or taxa not including
their type. Such names continue not to be available for use in a sense
that conflicts with current usage, unless and until a proposal to deal
with them under the conservation provisions of Art. 14 or the rejection
provisions of the new Art. 56 have been submitted and rejected. The
separation of Arts. 56 and 57 makes even clearer the requirement of the
Code (formerly in Art. 69.4) not to use such a name in a sense that
conflicts with current usage unless the appropriate Committee has
authorized its use.
It is of particular note that the Nomenclature Section at Yokohama,
recognizing the significance of this increased scope for conservation and
rejection of names in ensuring nomenclatural stability, adopted a
resolution in the following terms: "The Section urges the General
Committee and through it all Permanent Committees to make full use of the
options that the Code now provides in order to ensure nomenclatural
clarity and stability." Individual users of the Code also have a
responsibility to help ensure nomenclatural clarity and stability by
ensuring that, rather than change names for purely nomenclatural reasons,
appropriate proposals for conservation or rejection are made (see also
the Congress Resolution, below).
One entirely new concept is incorporated in the new edition of the Code,
that of interpretive types to serve when an established type cannot be
reliably identified for purposes of precise application of a name. The
original proposal had used the term "protype" for such a specimen or
illustration, but the Nomenclature Section asked the Editorial Committee
to determine the most appropriate term and the Committee adopted
"epitype", as better expressing the meaning ("on top of the type", and
because protype had been used in other senses in the past. The provision
appears in Art. 9.7.
Other decisions of note made by the Tokyo Congress and incorporated in
the new edition of the Code include provisions for the use of the term
"phylum" as an alternative to "divisio" (Art. 4.2); the additional
requirement for valid publication after 1 January 2000 (subject to the
approval of the XVI International Botanical Congress) that names be
registered (Art. 32.1); the designation of "suppressed works" in which
certain categories of names are ruled as not validly published (Art. 32.8
and the new App. V); the requirement that in order to be validly
published a name of a new taxon of fossil plants must, on or after 1
January 1996, be accompanied by a Latin or English description or
diagnosis, or reference to such, and not one in any other language (Art.
36.3); and clarification and revision of the situation in which "ex" may
be used in the citation of authors' names (Art. 46), with confirma-tion
that the preposition "in", and what may follow, is bibliographic and not
part of author citation.
>From time to time Nomenclature Sections have accepted specific Examples
("Voted Examples") in order to clarify nomenclatural practice where the
corresponding Article of the Code is open to divergent interpretation or
may not even cover the matter at all. One such Example, adopted by the
Tokyo Congress, appears as Art. 8 Ex. 1, making clear what has hitherto
been controversial, namely that "cultures permanently preserved in a
metabolically inactive state" are to be considered "preserved
permanently" (Art. 8.2), and, although in a sense "living plants or
cultures", are eligible as types, regularizing a procedure adopted by
yeast taxonomists in particular. Whereas the Editorial Committee
normally has the power to delete, modify or add Examples in order to
clarify the Code, this power does not extend to "Voted Examples", which
the Editorial Committee is obligated to retain in the Code, whether or
not they actually exemplify the rules. In response to a suggestion made
at the Yokohama meetings that "Voted Examples" should be clearly
indicated, an asterisk (*) has been inserted against each one.
Although proposals made to the Tokyo Congress to provide for the granting
of protection to names (or some aspect of names, e.g. types) on approved
lists (the "NCU proposals") did not receive the 60% majority necessary to
permit the adoption of the principle within the Code, the Section was
particularly impressed by the utility of the list of species of
Trichocomaceae (incl. Aspergillus and Penicillium) (Names in Current
Use -- 2, Regnum veg. 128. 1993) in ensuring stability in that group.
Accordingly the Section adopted the following resolution that authorizes
users of names in that family to suspend application of the Code where
necessary: "The Nomenclature Section, noting that the List of Names in
Current Use for the Trichocomaceae, which has already been approved by
the International Commission on Penicillium and Aspergillus of the
International Union of Microbiological Societies (IUMS), urges
taxonomists not to adopt names that would compete with or change the
application of any names on that list."
The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature is published under the
ultimate authority of the International Botanical Congresses. The Tokyo
Congress at its final plenary session adopted the following resolution
relating to nomenclature. This resolution not only approved the
decisions of the Nomenclature Section but also urges botanists not to
change names for purely nomenclatural reasons.
"Considering the great importance of a stable system of scientific names
of plants for use in the pure and applied sciences and in many other
domains of public life and economy;
noting with satisfaction recent important improvements in the
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and ongoing efforts to
explore new avenues for increased stability and security in the
application of plant names;
the XV International Botanical Congress urges plant taxonomists, while
such work continues, to avoid displacing well established names for
purely nomenclatural reasons, whether by change in their application of
by resurrection of long-forgotten names;
resolves that the decisions of the Nomenclature Section with respect to
the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, as well as the
appointment of officers and members of the
nomenclature committees, made by that section during its meetings, 22~27
August, be accepted."
Provisions for modifications of the Code are detailed in Division III of
the Code and are described above. An account of the international
organization of botanical nomenclature appears in McNeill & Greuter,
Botanical nomenclature (IUBS Monogr. Ser. 2: 3-26. 1986). The various
permanent nomenclature committees listed in Division III operate under
the auspices of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT),
which is itself a Section of the International Union of Biological
Sciences (IUBS). At the Tokyo Congress one Permanent Committee (the
Committee for Hybrids) was dissolved, and another, the former Committee
for Fungi and Lichens, was renamed the Committee for Fungi. The
secretaries of these committees, along with additional ex officio and
elected members, constitute the General Committee, which represents
botanical nomenclature between Congresses and serves also as the
Commission on Nomenclature of Plants of IUBS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John McNeill, Director, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park,
Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2C6, Canada.
(Secretary, Editorial Committee, International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature).
Tel.: 416-586-5639 Fax: 416-586-8044
e-mail: john@rom.on.ca (or: johnm@rom.on.ca)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Phil Mueller 325 Burdette
hi23ahg@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu New Orleans, LA 70118
Tulane University (504) 866-1913
--
Phil Mueller
hi23ahg@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
Tulane Graduate School
Xavier Univ. of LA History Dept.