CONGRESS ACTION, IX IBC (1959)

Congress action on proposals-to-amend-the-Code at the IX IBC (1959),
the Montreal Congress.  Based on (by permission of the IAPT):

      [Frans A. Stafleu ?]
    “IXth International Botanical Congress, Montreal 1959:
      Nomenclature Section” (in Taxon 8: 247-252. 1964).

But adjusted here and there according to the proceedings presented by
J. Lanjouw and F.A. Stafleu (in Regnum Veg. 20. 1960).

Links go to the relevant page of a PDF, a local copy (copyright IAPT).
However, this may be off one page (browser-dependent; some browsers
do not count the page added by JSTOR).

See also:

   •  conversion table
   •  list of proposals
 

     Synopsis      Proposal as submitted     Congress action Comm. advice
Preamble - Prop. A 120 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  ed.c.  
Prin. I - Prop. A 264 – Silva    

     was accepted as amended (Faegri) to include  “names of”  before
     “taxonomic groups”.

Prin. III - Prop. A 151 – Bullock    

     was accepted as amended (the proposer), the Principle to start:
     “The nomenclature of”.

Prin. IV - Prop. A 268 – Silva  –  no [mail vote]  
Prin. IV - Prop. B 269 – Silva  –  no [mail vote]  
Prin. IV - Prop. C 270 – Silva  –  no [mail vote]  

     however, a motion (Fosberg) was accepted to indeed insert here
     the phrase from Art. 11.1:  “with a given circumscription, position
     and rank”.

Prin. V - Prop. A 005 – St. John  –  no [mail vote]  
Prin. V - Prop. B 265 – Silva  –  ed.c.  
Prin. V - Prop. C 152 – Bullock  –  withdrawn  
Prin. VII - Prop. A 263 – Silva  –  no  
Prin. VIII - Prop. A 266 – Silva  –  no  
Prin. VIII - Prop. B – [sn-01] – Rapporteur  –  no  
Prin. IX - Prop. A 267 – Silva  –  no  
Art. 1 - Prop. A 066 – Fuchs  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 2 - Prop. A 067 – Fuchs  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 3 - Prop. A 068 – Fuchs  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 4 - Prop. A 023 – Fosberg  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 4 - Prop. B 069 – Fuchs  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 4 - Prop. C 202 – Christensen  –  no [mail vote]  

A motion (Ross) was referred to the Editorial Committee, to reword
the second sentence of Art. 4:  “... subordinate ranks of the plant
kingdom: Divisio, ...” .

Art. 4 - Prop. D 215 – Dostál & al.  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 4 - Prop. E 226 – Dostál & al.  –  no [mail vote]  

A motion (Reeder) was rejected, to add after  “the prefix sub (sub)”
“or super (super)”,  in part because it would allow  “superspecies”.

The Committee for Cultivated Plants (‘for Nomenclature of Hybrids’)
recommended to replace  “special categories resulting from genetic
analysis of taxa”  by  “hybrids and some special categories”.

Rec. 4A - Prop. A 024 – Fosberg  –  yes  
Art. 5 - Prop. A 025 – Fosberg  –  c.fung. / ed.c.  
Art. 5 - Prop. B 051 – by Mansfeld    

     was discussed together with Art. 20 Prop. C (179 by Dandy &
     Ross), Art. 68 Prop. A (311 by Proskauer) and a mimeographed
     document by Bullock, Dandy, and Ross.
         Of these, Art. 5 Prop. B and Art. 68 Prop. A were rejected,
     while Art. 20 Prop. C was withdrawn in favour of a replacement
     proposal (Fosberg) to add “Necker’s species naturales” to the
     examples of unitary designations of species under Art. 68(3).
     This was accepted.

Art. 5 - Prop. C 070 – Fuchs  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 6 - Prop. A 281 – Morton  –  yes  
Art. 7 - Prop. A 026 – Fosberg  –  yes  
Art. 7 - Prop. B 071 – Fuchs  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 7 - Prop. C 307 – Potonié    

     was considered with Art. 7 Prop. E (145 by Schulze & Buchheim):
     the Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature recommended
     that Note 5 be reworded as:

        “The typification of genera based on plant megafossils and
         plant microfossils (form and organ genera), fungi imperfecti,
         and any other analogous genera ...

Art. 7 - Prop. D 276 – Silva  –  ed.c.  
Art. 7 - Prop. E 145 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  see Art. 7 - C  
Art. 7 - Prop. F 153 – Bullock & Ross  –  no  
Art. 7 - Prop. G 154 – Bullock & Ross  –  ed.c. [   ]  
Art. 7 - Prop. H 155 – Bullock & Ross  –  no  

     but a Special Committee on Neotypes established.

Art. 7 - Prop. I 156 – Bullock & Ross  –  ed.c.  
Art. 7 - Prop. K 157 – Bullock & Ross  –  yes  
Art. 7 - Prop. L 158 – Bullock & Ross  –  yes c.alg.:  +
Art. 7 - Prop. M 213 – Dostál & al.  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 7 - Prop. N – [sn-02] – Rapporteur  –  yes  
Art. 8 - Prop. A 072 – Fuchs  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 8 - Prop. B 156 – Bullock & Ross  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 8A - Prop. A 072 – Fuchs  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 8B - Prop. A 072 – Fuchs  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 8B - Prop. A 159 – Bullock & Ross  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 8C - Prop. A 160 – Bullock & Ross  –  yes  
Rec. 8C - Prop. B 072 – Fuchs  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 8C - Prop. B 160 – Bullock & Ross  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 8D - Prop. A 072 – Fuchs  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 8D - Prop. A 161 – Bullock & Ross  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 8E - Prop. A 072 – Fuchs  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 8E - Prop. B 162 – Bullock & Ross  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. A 163 – Bullock & Ross  –  ed.c.  
Art. 10 - Prop. A 101 – Staplin  –  yes c.foss.:  +
Art. 10 - Prop. B 277 – Silva  –  no  
Art. 10 - Prop. C 120a – Schulze & Buchheim  –  ed.c.  
Art. 10 - Prop. D 164 – Bullock & Ross  –  ed.c.  
Art. 10bis - Prop. A 317 – Baehni  –  no  
Art. 11 - Prop. A 282 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Art. 11 - Prop. B 145a – Holm  –  yes  
Art. 13 - Prop. A 018 – Donk  –  c.fung. c.bryo.:  –, c.fung.:  –
Art. 13 - Prop. B 058 – Silva  –  no c.alg.:  –
Art. 13 - Prop. C 305 – C. Bryophyta  –  yes c.bryo.:  +
Art. 13 - Prop. D 306 – C. Bryophyta  –  no c.bryo.:  –
Art. 13 - Prop. E 283 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Art. 13 - Prop. F 228 – Dostál & al.  –  no c.al.:  –, br.:  –, fu.:  +
Art. 13 - 321 321 – Hughes   c.fung.:   +

     was amended (Committee for Fungi and Lichens), to replace
     “Hyphomycetes”  by  “Fungi Imperfecti”.

Art. 14 - Prop. A 001 – Little no [mail vote]  
Art. 14 - Prop. B 001 – Little no [mail vote]  
Art. 14 - Prop. C 001 – Little no [mail vote]  
Art. 14 - Prop. D 001 – Little no [mail vote]  
Art. 14 - Prop. E 001 – Little no [mail vote]  

     were considered together with Art. 14bis Prop. A (302 by
     Dandy & Ross), Art. 15 Prop. B (303 by Dandy & Ross),
     and a compromise proposal (Lanjouw) [the nomina specifica
     conservanda-proposals]: all were rejected en bloc.  Instead a
     resolution was accepted, which was later adopted as
     Resolution 2 by the Congress.

Art. 14 - Prop. F 015 – Traub  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 14 - Prop. G 027 – Fosberg  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 14 - Prop. H 042 – Rickett & Stafleu  –  yes  
Art. 14 - Prop. I 043 – Rickett & Stafleu  –  yes  
Art. 14bis - Prop. A 302 – Dandy & Ross  –  see Art. 14 - A  
Art. 15 - Prop. A 038 – Rickett & Smith  –  yes  
Art. 15 - Prop. B 303 – Dandy & Ross  –  see Art. 14 - A  
Rec. 15A - Prop. A 039 – Rickett & Smith  –  yes  
Rec. 16A - Prop. A 023 – Fosberg  –  no [mail vote]  
Rec. 16A - Prop. B 216 – Dostál & al.  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 17 - Prop. A 012 – Buchheim    

     was accepted as amended (Tryon), the new provision to start:
     “Names of orders published”.

Art. 17 - Prop. B 062 – Proskauer  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 17 - Prop. C 272 – Silva  –  yes  
Art. 17 - Prop. D 136 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  withdrawn  
Art. 17 - Prop. E 214 – Dostál & al.  –  yes  
Art. 18 - Prop. A 059 – Proskauer  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 18 - Prop. B 073 – Fuchs  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 18 - Prop. C 093 – Rickett  –  yes  
Art. 18 - Prop. D 273 – Silva    

     was accepted as amended, as suggested by the Rapporteur, to add
     “unless conserved”  to the proposed Note.

Art. 18 - Prop. E 013 – Buchheim  –  yes  
Art. 18 - Prop. F 176 – Bullock  –  yes  
Art. 18 - Prop. G 177 – Bullock  –  yes  
Art. 18 - Prop. H 217 – Dostál & al.  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 18 - Prop. I 259 – Dostál  –  no [mail vote]  
Rec. 18A - Prop. A 060 – Proskauer  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 19 - Prop. A 061 – Proskauer  –  withdrawn  
Art. 19 - Prop. B 074 – Fuchs  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 19 - Prop. C 274 – Silva  –  yes  
Art. 19 - Prop. D 260 – Dostál  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 20 - Prop. A 146 – Holm  –  yes  
Art. 20 - Prop. B 165 – Ross    

     was accepted as amended (the proposer), replacing  “by specific
     names”  by  “by any specific name”.

Art. 20 - Prop. C 179 – Dandy & Ross  –  see Art. 5 - A  
Art. 21 - Prop. A 284 – Morton  –  yes  
Art. 21 - Prop. B 166 – Ross  –  yes [   ]  
Art. 21 - Prop. C 180 – Ross  –  yes  
Rec. 21A - Prop. A 182 – Ross  –  ed.c.  
Art. 22 - Prop. A 075 – Fuchs  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 22 - Prop. B 285 – Morton  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 22B - Prop. A 181 – Ross  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 22C - Prop. A 040 – Wherry  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 23 - Prop. A 049 – St. John  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 23 - Prop. B 286 – Morton  –  yes  
Art. 23 - Prop. C 167 – Ross  –  yes  
Art. 23 - Prop. D 199 – Deighton  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 23A - Prop. A 231 – Dostál & al.  –  ed.c.  
Art. 24 - Prop. A 308 – Fosberg  –  ed.c.  
Art. 24 - Prop. B 168 – Ross  –  yes  
Art. 24 - Prop. C 218 – Dostál & al.  –  yes  
Art. 26 - Prop. A 076 – Fuchs  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 26 - Prop. B 309 – Sandwith  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 26A - Prop. A 041 – Wherry  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 27 - Prop. A 169 – Ross  –  yes  
Art. 29 - Prop. A 020 – Rickett    

     was accepted as amended to replace (Stearn)  “the printer”  by 
     “the publisher or his agent”  and to become a Recommendation
     (Fosberg).

Art. 29 - Prop. B 244 – Dostál  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 29A - Prop. A 028 – Fosberg  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 29A - Prop. B 120b – Schulze & Buchheim  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 31 - Prop. A 245 – Dostál  –  ed.c.  
Art. 31 - Prop. A 287 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Art. 31bis - Prop. A 002 – Little  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 31ter - Prop. A 003 – Little  –  no (mail vote)  
Section 2 - Prop. A 183 – Ross  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 32 - Prop. A 065 – Proskauer  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 32 - Prop. B 109 – Traverse  –  yes c.foss.:  +
Art. 32 - Prop. B 147 – Holm  –  yes c.foss.:  +
Art. 32 - Prop. C 119 – Funkhouser  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. 32 - Prop. D 246 – Dostál  –  ed.c.  
Art. 32 - Prop. D 288 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Art. 32 - Prop. E 170 – Ross  –  yes  
Art. 32 - Prop. F 185 – Ross  –  no  
Art. 32 - Prop. G 187 – Deighton    

     was accepted on the understanding that the Editorial Committee
     would revise it in the light of the suggestions made.

Art. 32 - Prop. H 188 – Deighton  –   yes  
Art. 32 - Prop. I 220 – Dostál & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 32 - Prop. K 223 – Dostál & al.  –  yes  
Art. 33 - Prop. A 189 – Bullock  –  no  

     but a proposal (Lanjouw) was accepted, a new example to be
     found by the Editorial Committee.

Art. 33 - Prop. B 222 – Dostál & al.  –  ed.c.  
Art. 33 - Prop. C 224 – Dostál & al.  –  no  
Art. 34 - Prop. A 011 – Bullock  –  withdrawn  
Art. 34 - Prop. B 094 – Mamay  –  yes                c.foss.:  +
Art. 34 - Prop. C 095 – Mamay   c.alg.:  –, c.foss.:  +

     was referred to the Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature
     and the Committee for Algae.  As these did not agree, the proposal
     was rejected and instead a resolution was adopted:

         “In view of the conflict between the Committees for
          Palaeobotany and Algae on the adoption of Art. 34, Prop. C,
          the Section requests them jointly to consider the consequences
          of its rejection and to report to the next Congress.  The Section
          recommends that botanists should, in the interim, interpret
          Art. 34 in the sense intended by the Paris Congress.”

Art. 34 - Prop. D 097 – Cross & al.  –  no c.alg.:  +, c.foss.:  –

    [the Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature did
     recommend further consideration at a subsequent Congress]

Art. 34 - Prop. E 184 – Ross  –  no  

A motion (Ross) to replace “diagnosis” by “description” in Art. 34
was rejected.  However, a motion (Rickett) was accepted to ask the
Editorial Committee to scrutinize the words description, diagnosis,
definition and make a recommendation on their use to the next
Congress.

Rec. 34A - Prop. A 186 – Ross    

     was accepted as amended (Fosberg) to add  “in addition to the
     diagnosis”.  The proposer said that the words  “of living plants”
     should still be added.

Art. 35 - Prop. A 110 – Traverse  –  yes c.foss.:  +
Art. 35 - Prop. B 117 – Funkhouser  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. 35 - Prop. C 190 – Deighton  –  as a Rec.  
Rec. 35B - Prop. A 191 – Deighton  –  yes  
Art. 35bis - Prop. A 004 – Buchinger  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 36 - Prop. A 096 – Mamay  –  yes c.foss.:  +
Art. 36 - Prop. B 098 – Cross & al.  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. 36 - Prop. C 102 – Ames & al.  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. 36 - Prop. D 142 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  yes c.foss.:  +
Art. 37 - Prop. A 221 – Dostál & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 39 - Prop. A 111 – Traverse  –  yes c.foss.:  +
Art. 39 - Prop. B 225 – Dostál & al.  –  ed.c.  
Art. 40 - Prop. A 120c – Schulze & Buchheim    

     the Committee for Cultivated Plants (‘for Nomenclature of
     Hybrids’) recommended to just delete Art. 40 instead.

Art. 41 - Prop. A 121 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 41A - Prop. A 029 – Fosberg  –  yes  
Rec. 41A - Prop. A 030 – Fosberg  –  yes  
Art. 42 - Prop. A 016, ‘no 2’ – De Wit  –  no  
Art. 42 - Prop. B 050 – St. John  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 42 - Prop. C 289 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Art. 42 - Prop. D 171 – Ross  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 42A - Prop. A 017, ‘no 3’ – De Wit  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 43 - Prop. A 247 – Dostál  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 44 - Prop. A 031 – Fosberg  –  ed.c.  
Art. 45 - Prop. A 032 – Fosberg  –  yes  
Art. 45 - Prop. B 264 – Silva  –  gen.c. c.alg.:  +

The Committee for Algae recommended to replace the paragraph
that was to be deleted (per Prop. B) by a new provision, placing
to be left to the Editorial Committee:

    “If at the time of the transfer of a taxon to the plant kingdom,
     its name has not been validly published in accordance with
     this Code, the author giving it valid publication on or after
     1 Jan. 196- must adopt its previous name and type, provided:
     (1) this name is available in its previous position; and
     (2) its use does not conflict with any provision of this Code.”

The Committee for Algae recommended to change the first
sentence of Art. 45 to read as follows:

    “The date of a name or of an epithet is that of its valid
     publication in accordance with the provisions of this Code,
     whether or not the taxon to which it applies was originally
     assigned to the plant kingdom
.”

Art. 45 - Prop. C 148 – Holm  –  yes  

It was noted (Smith) that in the Article and in the footnote, the
zoological term  “valid”  should be replaced by  “available”.
This matter was referred to the Editorial Committee.

Rec. 45C - Prop. A 290 – Morton  –  yes  
Rec. 45G - Prop. A 006 – St. John  –  no  
Art. 46 - Prop. A 007 – St. John    

     was accepted as amended (as suggested by the Rapporteur), this
     to be a Recommendation, with one author instead of three authors.

Art. 46 - Prop. B 077 – Fuchs  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 46 - Prop. C 232 – Dostál & al.  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 46A - Prop. A 044 – Rowley  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 46A - Prop. B 078 – Fuchs  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 46A - Prop. C 089 – Bullock  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 46A - Prop. D 233 – Dostál & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 46B - Prop. A 033 – Fosberg  –  yes  
Rec. 46B - Prop. B 079 – Fuchs  –  no [mail vote]  
Rec. 46B - Prop. C 229 – Dostál & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 46B - Prop. D 230 – Dostál & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 46B - Prop. E 238 – Dostál & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 46C - Prop. A 080 – Fuchs  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 46bis - 320 320 – SMdF  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 47 - Prop. A 248 – Dostál  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 47A - Prop. A 081 – Fuchs  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 47A - Prop. B 239 – Dostál & al.  –  no  
Rec. 47B - Prop. A 241 – Dostál & al.  –  no  
Rec. 47C - Prop. A 242 – Dostál & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 48 - Prop. A 310 – Rickett  –  yes  
Art. 48 - Prop. B 278 – Silva  –  yes  
Art. 48 - Prop. C 240 – Dostál & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 49 - Prop. A 090 – Bullock  –  no  
Rec. 49A - Prop. A 082 – Fuchs  –  no  
Rec. 49B - Prop. A 236 – Dostál & al.  –  no  
Rec. 49B - Prop. B 237 – Dostál & al.  –  no  
Art. 50 - Prop. A 091 – Bullock  –  no  
Rec. 50A - Prop. A 083 – Fuchs  –  no [mail vote]  

     [the Example referred to the Editorial Committee]

Rec. 50A - Prop. B 291 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 50B - Prop. A 234 – Dostál & al.  –  no [mail vote]  
Rec. 50C - Prop. A 084 – Fuchs  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 50D - Prop. A 019 – Donk  –  yes  
Rec. 50D - Prop. B 085 – Fuchs  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 50D - Prop. C 092 – Bullock  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 50D - Prop. D 235 – Dostál & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 50Dbis - A 019 – Donk  –  no c.alg.:  –, c.bry.:  –
Rec. 50G - Prop. A 292 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 50H - Prop. A 086 – Fuchs  –  yes  
Art. 51 - Prop. A 279 – Silva  –  no [mail vote]  
Art. 51 - Prop. B 293 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Art. 51 - Prop. C 178 – Bullock  –  ed.c.  
Art. 52 - Prop. A 249 – Dostál  –  ed.c.  
Art. 52 - Prop. B 294 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 52A - 319 319 – SMdF  –  yes  
Art. 53 - Prop. A 203 – Prokhanov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 55 - Prop. A 122 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  ed.c.  
Art. 55 - Prop. B 204 – Prokhanov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 55 - Prop. C 250 – Dostál  –  ed.c.  
Art. 55 - Prop. D 251 – Dostál  –  ed.c.  
Art. 55 - Prop. E 296 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Art. 57 - Prop. A 297 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Art. 57 - Prop. B 205 – Prokhanov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 58 - Prop. A 103 – Ames & al.  –  yes c.foss.:  +

     a replacement example was provided by the Committee for
     Palaeobotanical Nomenclature:

       Platycarya Sieb. and Zucc. (1843),
                   in place of Sequoia Endl. (1847), and
       Petrophiloides Bowerbank (1840),
                   in place of Steinhauera Presl (1838).

Art. 59 - Prop. A 123 – Schulze & Buchheim    

     was referred to the Committee for Fungi and Lichens
     which recommended:

     a) After the word “Phycomycetes” the remainder of the
         first sentence to be deleted and the following to be
         inserted:

           “... the correct name of all states is one typified by the
            perfect state; but otherwise, a name refers only to the
            state represented by its type. The legitimacy of a name
            or epithet typified by the perfect state is not affected by
            the earlier publication of any name or epithet typified by
            another state of the same taxon.”

     b) The third sentence,  “The type specimen ... stage”, to be
         deleted.
     c) In the last sentence (par. 2), replace  “of a perfect state” 
         by  “of the name of a perfect state”.

Art. 59 - Prop. B 124 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  yes c.fung.:  +
Art. 60 - Prop. A 206 – Prokhanov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. B 227 – Dostál & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 61 - Prop. A 063 – Proskauer  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 61 - Prop. B 275 – Silva  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 62 - Prop. A 207 – Prokhanov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 62bis - Prop. A 010 – Rickett & Camp  –  no  
Art. 63 - Prop. A 034 – Fosberg  –  ed.c.  
Art. 63 - Prop. B 304 – Dandy & Ross  –  no  
Art. 64 - Prop. A 064 – Proskauer  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 64 - Prop. B 280 – Silva  –  no c.alg.:  –

     the Committee for Algae instead proposed an addition to the last
     paragraph of Art. 64 (based on the last part of Principle I):

        “In all other cases, the name of a plant must not be rejected
         merely because it is the name of an animal.”

     This was referred to the General Committee together with
     Art. 45, Prop. B.

Art. 64 - Prop. C 192 – Ross  –  yes  
Art. 64 - Prop. D 172 – Ross  –  yes  
Art. 64 - Prop. E 200 – Deighton  –  ed.c.  
Art. 64 - Prop. F 208 – Prokhanov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 65 - Prop. A 008 – St. John  –  no c.stab.:  –
Art. 65 - Prop. B 045 – Rowley  –  ed.c.  
Art. 65 - Prop. C 209 – Prokhanov  –  no  
Art. 65 - Prop. D 314 – Mansfeld & Schulze  –  no c.stab.:  ?
Art. 66 - Prop. A 035 – Fosberg  –  no c.stab.:  –
Art. 66 - Prop. B 193 – Ross  –  withdrawn  
Art. 66 - Prop. C 315 – Mansfeld & Schulze  –  no c.stab.:  ?
Art. 67 - Prop. A 036 – Fosberg  –  no  
Art. 67 - Prop. B 046 – Rowley    
Art. 67 - Prop. C 252 – Dostál    

     a suggestion (Faegri) was accepted to ask the Editorial
     Committee to define the word  “monstrosity”  and make
     a recommendation on its use to the next Congress.

[Art. 67] [sn-04] – Lewin  –  ignored  
Art. 68 - Prop. A 311 – Proskauer  –  see Art. 5 - A  
Art. 68 - Prop. B 149 – Holm  –  withdrawn  
Art. 68 - Prop. C 173 – Ross  –  yes  
Art. 69 - Prop. A 150 – Holm    

     was accepted as amended, as suggested by the Rapporteur, the
     Note to read:  “Illegitimate epithets must not be ...”.

Art. 69 - Prop. B 174 – Ross  –  yes  
Art. 70 - Prop. A 047 – Rowley  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 70 - Prop. B 175 – Ross  –  yes  
Art. 71 - Prop. A 087 – Fuchs  –  ed.c.  
Art. 73 - Prop. A 014 – McClure  –  ed.c.  
Art. 73 - Prop. B 021 – Rickett  –  yes  
Art. 73 - Prop. B 253 – Dostál  –  yes  
Art. 73 - Prop. C 037 – Fosberg  –  ed.c.  
Art. 73 - Prop. D 088 – Fuchs  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 73 - Prop. E 312 – Fosberg  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 73 - Prop. F 298 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Art. 73 - Prop. G 125 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  no  
Art. 73 - Prop. H 125 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  no  
Art. 73 - Prop. I 126 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  ed.c.  
Art. 73 - Prop. K 127 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  ed.c.  
Art. 73 - Prop. L 127 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  ed.c.  
Art. 73 - Prop. M 128 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  ed.c.  
Art. 73 - Prop. N 129 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  ed.c.  
Art. 73 - Prop. O 196 – Deighton  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 73C - Prop. A 130 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 73H - Prop. A 197 – Deighton  –  yes c.fung.:  +
Rec. 73I - Prop. A 198 – Deighton  –  no  
Art. 74 - Prop. A 210 – Prokhanov  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 75A - Prop. A 211 – Prokhanov  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 75A - Prop. B 254 – Dostál  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 75A - Prop. C 299 – Morton  –  ed.c.  
Art. 75bis - Prop. A 194 – Bullock  –  no  

A proposal from the floor (Ross) was accepted to insert in
Div. III, Provision 2, Para. 11, after  “rapporteur-général”  the
words  “of the previous Congress” (to take care of a change
of person holding the office).

A proposal from the floor (McVaugh & Tryon) was (as
suggested by Smith) referred to the next Congress, to modify
Div. III, Provision 4(2):

      “(2) A final and binding vote at the Nomenclature Section
       of the International Congress. Modification of the Code
       shall require a majority consisting of at least 60 per cent
       of the votes cast by the Section.”

Art. H.1 - Prop. A 048 – Rowley   c.cult.pl.:  +

     was accepted as amended (the Committee for Cultivated Plants,
     ‘for Nomenclature of Hybrids’), the new provision to read:

        “An exception may be made for amphidiploids treated as
         species which may bear a separate epithet without the
         multiplication (×) sign, and are then subject to the same
         rules as species.”

Art. H.1 - Prop. B 300 – Morton  –  yes c.cult.pl.:  +
Art. H.1 - Prop. C 131 – Schulze & Buchheim   c.cult.pl.:  +

     was accepted as amended (the Committee for Cultivated Plants
     (‘for Nomenclature of Hybrids’), the provision to read:

      “The formula consists of the names or the specific epithets
       of the two parents connected by the multiplication (×) sign.”

Art. H.1 - Prop. D 132 – Schulze & Buchheim   c.cult.pl.:  +

     was accepted as amended (the Committee for Cultivated Plants,
     ‘for Nomenclature of Hybrids’), the Example to read:

      “Salix × capreola = Salix aurita × S. caprea or alternatively
       Salix aurita × caprea.”

Art. H.1 - Prop. E 133 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  no c.cult.pl.:  –
Art. H.1 - Prop. F C. Cultivated Plants    

     (from the floor) was accepted, a new Note to be added:

        “Note 4. The order of the names or epithets in the formula
         may be either alphabetical (as in this code) or with the name
         of the female parent first when this is known.  The male (♂)
         and female (♀) signs may be added if desired.  The method
         used in any publication should be clearly stated.”

Art. H.2 - Prop. A 134 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  yes c.cult.pl.:  +
Art. H.3 - Prop. A 301 – Morton  –  yes c.cult.pl.:  +
Rec. H.5A - Prop. A 135 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  yes c.cult.pl.:  +

Stafleu explained that due to a error by him, a proposal by Cross
on Appendix II had been omitted from the Synopsis.  He proposed
to authorize the Palaeobotanical Committee also to consider this
proposal in its report.  This motion was accepted unanimously.
In its report, this Committee recommended, in accord with this
proposal, to transfer material from Appendix II to appropriate
points in the body of the Code, and to otherwise delete the
Appendix.

App. II - Prop. A 139 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  no c.foss.:  –
App. II - Prop. B 140 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  no c.foss.:  –
App. II - Prop. C 212 – van der Hammen  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. PB.1 - Prop. A 052 – Arnold  –  no c.foss.:  –

     the Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature recommended
     that PB.1 be inserted as a Note following Art. 3.  The first
     paragraph without modification; the rest to be replaced by:

        “An organ genus is a genus assignable to a family.  A form
         genus is a genus unassignable to a family, but may be
         referable to a higher taxon.  Form genera are artificial in
         varying degree.”

Art. PB.1 - Prop. B 104 – Ames & al.  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. PB.1 - Prop. C 141 – Schulze & Buchheim  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. PB.2 - Prop. A 055 – Arnold  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. PB.2 - Prop. B 118 – Funkhouser  –  no c.foss.:  –

As to Art. PB.2, the Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature
recommended that it be deleted.

[Art. PB.1, PB.2] [sn-05] – Cross  –  ignored  
Art. PB.3 - Prop. A 099 – Cross & al.  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. PB.3 - Prop. B 105 – Ames & al.  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. PB.3 - Prop. C 112 – Traverse  –  yes c.foss.:  +
[Art. PB.3] [sn-06] – Cross  –  yes / ignored  
[Art. PB.4] [sn-07] – Cross  –  no c.foss.:  –
[Art. PB.4] [sn-08] – Cross  –  no c.foss.:  –
[Art. PB.4] [sn-18] – Crambast  –  yes c.foss.:  +
Rec. PB.4A - Prop. A 053 – Arnold  –  no c.foss.:  –

    the Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature recommended
    instead that this be inserted as a Note under Art. 10:

      “The whole specimen used during the establishment of a taxon
       of fossil plants should be considered the nomenclatural type.
       If the specimen is cut into pieces (sections of fossil wood,
       pieces of coal ball plants, etc.), all parts originally used in
       establishing the diagnosis should be clearly marked.”

Art. PB.5 - Prop. A 143 – Schulze & Buchheim   c.foss.:  +

     was accepted as amended by the Committee for Palaeobotanical
     Nomenclature; this provision to read:

        “When diagnoses are altered or circumscriptions changed in
         taxa of fossil plants of specific or lower rank, the type ...

[Art. PB.5] [sn-09] – Cross  –  yes c.foss.:  +
[Art. PB.5] [sn-19] – Crambast  –  withdrawn  
[Art. PB.6] [sn-10] – Cross  –  yes c.foss.:  +
Rec. PB.6A - Prop. A 106 - Ames & al.  –  no c.foss.:  –
Rec. PB.6A - Prop. B 113 – Traverse  –  no c.foss.:  –
Rec. PB.6A - Prop. C 144 – Schulze & Buchheim   c.foss.:  +

     was accepted as amended by the Committee for Palaeobotanical
     Nomenclature, to read:

        “An author describing a new genus of fossil plants should
         indicate whether he regards it as an organ genus or a form
         genus.”

[Rec. PB.6A] [sn-11] – Cross  –  yes c.foss.:  +
Rec. PB.6B - Prop. A 107 – Ames & al.  –  yes c.foss.:  +
[Rec. PB.6B] [sn-12] – Cross  –  ignored  
[Rec. PB.6C] [sn-13] – Cross  –  no c.foss.:  –

    the Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature instead
    recommended insertion following the Note under Art. 3,
    with the wording:

      “Form genera should not be used as types on which families
       or taxa of higher rank are established.”

[Rec. PB.6C Note] [sn-14] – Cross  –  no c.foss.:  –

    the Note instead to be deleted.

Rec. PB.6D - Prop. A 114 – Traverse  –  no c.foss.:  –
[Rec. PB.6D] [sn-15] – Cross  –  yes c.foss.:  +
[Rec. PB.6E] [sn-16] – Cross  –  no c.foss.:  –
Rec. PB.6F - Prop. A 108 – Ames & al.  –  no c.foss.:  –
Rec. PB.6F - Prop. B 115 – Traverse  –  yes c.foss.:  +
[Rec. PB.6F] [sn-17] – Cross  –  ignored  
Art. PB.7 - Prop. A 054 – Arnold  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. PB.7 - Prop. B 116 – Boureau  –  withdrawn  
Rec. PB.7A - Prop. A 055 – Arnold  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. PB.8 - Prop. A 056 – Arnold  –  withdrawn  

The Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature
recommended to insert a Recommendation under Art. 57:

      “Fossils uniting diagnostic features of diverse taxa may
       be assigned either to (1) one, thereby enlarging its
       circumscription, or (2) may be proposed as a new taxon
       having the amplified circumscription.”

Rec. PB.8A - Prop. A 057 – Arnold  –  withdrawn  
Art. PB.9 - Prop. A 100 – Cross & al.  –  no c.foss.:  –
Art. PB.10 - Prop. A 313 – Potonié  –  withdrawn  

The Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature rejected
an unpublished proposal by British palaeobotanists, which
would have added a new Article:

      “It is permissible to continue to use the name of a form
       genus for all species considered as belonging to the same
       form genus as its type species even if that species
       becomes referred also to an organ genus or to a natural
       genus.”

Instead, it recommended to insert, following the proposed
Note under Art. 3:

      “As in the case of pleomorphic fungi (see Art. 59), these
       provisions shall not be construed as preventing the use of
       names of form genera in works referring to such taxa.”

App. III - Prop. A 022 – De Wolf  –  no [mail vote]  
App. III - Prop. B 022 – De Wolf  –  no (autom.)  
App. III - Prop. C [sn-22] – Gen.Com.  –  yes  
App. III - Prop. D [sn-23] – Gen.Com.  –  yes  
App. III - Prop. E [sn-24] – Bullock [   ]  –  yes  
App. III - Prop. F [sn-25] – Rickett & Stafleu  –  c.sperm.  
App. III - Prop. G 255 – Dostál  –  ed.c.  
App. III - Prop. H 256 – Dostál  –  c.fung.  
App. III - Prop. I 257 – Dostál  –  ed.c.  
App. III - Prop. K 258 – Dostál  –  ed.c.  
App. III - Prop. L 261 – Dostál  –  c.sperm.  
App. III - Prop. M 262 – Dostál  –  c.sperm.  
App. III - Prop. N 138 – Schulze & Buchheim    

     the Paris Congress had instructed the permanent Committees
     to report on the application of the principles of priority and
     typification to names of taxa above the rank of family.  The
     inventory presented (Stafleu) showed that a great majority of
     the members of the Committees was opposed to this.  Prop. N
     was rejected. A proposal from the floor (Smith) was accepted
     to delete “orders”  from Art. 14.   [   ]

App. III - Prop. O [sn-03] – [Gen.Com?]  –  var.c.'s  
App. IV - Prop. A 009 – St. John  –  yes  
App. IV - Prop. B 316 – Mansfeld & Schulze  –  ed.c.  
Gen.prop. - Prop. A 271 – Silva  –  withdrawn  
Gen.prop. - Prop. B 201 – Bullock  –  yes  
Gen.prop. - Prop. C 243 – Dostál  –  ed.c.  

The Paris Congress had instructed the permanent Committees
to take a position on living specimens as nomenclatural types.
A proposal (Stafleu) was accepted to approve their reports
and to instruct the Editorial Committee to insert a provision
that for Spermatophyta, Pteridophyta, Bryophyta and Algae it
was not possible to have a living specimen as a type, but that
for Bacteria and Fungi the possibility should be left open.

 
Abbreviation used:

SMdF = Société Mycologique de France.
 

 
General notes

In this overview a  “no [mail vote]”  indicates that a proposal was
rejected after receiving more than 75% no-votes in the mail vote.
At the time, this was not officially part of the procedures adopted
by the Nomenclature Section, but this information is included here,
for the sake of clarity and uniformity.  At Montreal, the procedure
was that proposals that had received more than 80% no-votes in
the mail vote were automatically rejected, but this applied only
from Art. 20 Prop. A onwards.

The official closing date for proposals was 1 September, 1958.
The President ruled that proposals which came in after December
1958 were out of order.

Many proposals were referred to the permanent Committee for
that particular group: the recommendations of these Committees
were to be reviewed by the Editorial Committee to ensure there
would be no effects on other groups.

Committees

•  A Special Committee on Neotypes was established.  To it was
    referred Art. 7 Prop. H (155 by Bullock & Ross). Also, Art. 10
    Prop. A (101 by Staplin).

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This page: 2014 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel