CONGRESS ACTION, X IBC (1964)
Congress action on proposals-to-amend-the-Code at
the X IBC,
the 1964, Edinburgh Congress.
Based on (by permission of the IAPT):
[Frans A. Stafleu ?]
Tenth
International Botanical Congress, Edinburgh - August 1964:
Nomenclature Section (in Taxon 13: 286-292. 1964).
But adjusted here and there according to the
proceedings presented by
Frans A. Stafleu (in Regnum Veg. 44. 1966).
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 |
A proposal brought forward
from the previous Congress to
modify Div. III, Provision 4
was raised from the floor (Tryon):
Final and binding vote at the Nomenclature Section of the
International Congress:
1) Alterations in the Articles of the Code including the
addition of new Articles, but excepting items referred
to the Editorial Committee shall require a majority of not
less than 60 per cent of the votes cast by the Section.
2) Items referred to the Editorial Committee and alterations
to portions of the Code, other than Articles, shall require a
simple majority of the votes cast by the Section.
This procedure was accepted for this Congress, but the proposal
itself was deferred till the discussion on Division III.
A proposal by the Committee for Fossil Plants was accepted
to
delete the word
artificial
and to add, after
within which
species may be recognized:
and
given names according to
this code.
Donk pointed out that at Montreal
it had been decided to delete
Fungi from Art. 9 Note 3.
was accepted as amended (Ross)
to add, after are
distinguished: from Recent plants
(also delete or
subfossil throughout).
The Committee for Fossil Plants also wished to
strongly
recommend to the Editorial Committee that here
and elsewhere
in the Code the word Recent
when used in the sense of
in
contradistinction to fossil should be capitalised
(as is the
customary practice in any geological or palaeobotanical context).
| Art. 14 - Prop. A | – 087 – Lanjouw | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. B | – 061 – Bullock | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. C | – 219 – Pinto da Silva | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. D | – 001 – Eichler | – ed.c. | sp.c.orth.: – / ed.c. |
| Art. 14 - Prop. E | – 062 – Bullock | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. F | – 220 – Pinto da Silva | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. G | – [sn-17] (1) – Bullock | – yes | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. H* | – [sn-11] 1– Jeffrey | – no | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. I* | – [sn-12] 2 – Jeffrey | – no | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. K* | – [sn-56] – Kilpper | – out of order | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. L* | – [sn-45] (ii) – Steenis | – yes | |
| Art. 15 - Prop. A | – 221 – Pinto da Silva | – no | |
| Art. 16 - Prop. A | – 050 – Papenfuss | – no [mail vote] | |
| Rec. 16A - Prop. A | – 222 – Pinto da Silva | – no [mail vote] | |
| Rec. 16A - Prop. B* | – [sn-46] 1 – Zabinkova | – out of order | |
| Rec. 16A - Prop. C* | – [sn-47] 2 – Zabinkova | – out of order | |
| Art. 17 - Prop. A | – 223 – Pinto da Silva | – no [mail vote] |
A motion from the floor (Committee for Algae, in light of the
rejection of Art. 7 Prop. A) was accepted, a new recommendation
to follow Art. 17:
Authors
are recommended not to publish new names of orders
for taxa of that rank which include the family from which an
existing ordinal name is derived.
| Art. 18 - Prop. A | – 052 – Buchheim | – yes | |
| Art. 18 - Prop. B | – 063 – Bullock | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 18 - Prop. C | – 168 – Váczy | – no [mail vote] | |
| Art. 18 - Prop. D | – 224 – Pinto da Silva | – no [mail vote] | |
| Art. 18 - Prop. E | – 225 – Pinto da Silva | – ed.c. | |
| Rec. 18A - Prop. A | – 017 – Faegri | – withdrawn | c.fos.: ? |
| Rec. 18A - Prop. B* | – [sn-42] 2 – Potonié | – withdrawn |
The Committee for Fossil Plants recommended
deletion of the
entire Rec. 18A.
[the proposal was first amended (Stafleu) to restrict transcription
to Roman numerals, as in Leptactina Leopoldi II
to become
Leptactina leopoldi-secundi ]
was accepted as amended (Stearn), to retain the Saxifraga-
example but the other way round.
| Art. 24 - Prop. B | – 170, 171 – Váczy | – no [mail vote] | |
| Art. 24 - Prop. C* | = Art. 23 - Prop. F | ||
| Rec. 24B - Prop. A | – [sn-16] (2) – Deighton &al. | – yes | c.fun.: + |
| Art. 25 - Prop. A | – 066 – Bullock | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 25 - Prop. B | – 232 – Pinto da Silva | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 26 - Prop. A | – 067 – Bullock | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 28 - Prop. A | – 033 (29) – Harrison | – no | c.hyb.: – |
| Art. 28 - Prop. B | – 068 – Bullock | – no | c.hyb.: – |
| Art. 28 - Prop. C‡ | – [sn-49] – C. Hybrids |
was accepted as amended (Burtt), to delete because of their
value to man.
replaced by a
joint proposal by Faegri and Schopf (Rec. 41A
Prop. C):
to delete Rec. 41A. This was accepted by the
Committee for Fossil Plants
(and the Section).
(adjusted by the proposer)
was accepted as amended
(Committee
for Fungi and Lichens),
changing the word spores to read
cells of the kind.
| Art. 59 - Prop. C | – 195 – Donk | – no | c.fun.: – |
| Art. 59 - Prop. D | – 278 – Wickerman | – no | c.fun.: – |
| Art. 59 - Prop. E* | – [sn-01] – Deighton | – ed.c. | c.fun.: + |
| Art. 60 - Prop. A | – 177 – Váczy | – no [mail vote] | |
| Art. 62 - Prop. A | – 054 – Bullock | – no | |
| Art. 62 - Prop. B | – 072 – Bullock | – no | |
| Art. 62 - Prop. C | – 246 – Pinto da Silva | – out of order | |
| Art. 62 - Prop. D | – [sn-13] – Fuchs | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 62 - Prop. E* | – [sn-55] – Prokhanov | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 63 - Prop. A | – 003 – Eichler | – ed.c. | [sp.c.orth.: – ] |
| Art. 63 - Prop. B | – 032 – Weresub & Hennebert | – no | |
| Art. 63 - Prop. C | – Prop. 049 – Tryon | – withdrawn |
instead a proposal (ad hoc Committee on Superfluous Names)
was accepted to include the last sentence of the first paragraph
from Art. 63 Prop. B, with the addition, after the words type
specimen, of:
or an illustration of a type specimen.
| Art. 63 - Prop. D | – 073 – Bullock | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 63 - Prop. E | – 092 – Donk | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 64 - Prop. A | – 247 – Pinto da Silva | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 64 - Prop. B | – 004 – Eichler | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 64 - Prop. C | – 005 – Eichler | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 64 - Prop. D | – 248 – Pinto da Silva | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 64 - Prop. E | – 249 – Pinto da Silva | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 64 - Prop. F | – 123 – Doty & Lamoureux | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 64 - Prop. G | – 123 – Doty & Lamoureux | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 64 - Prop. H | – 123 – Doty & Lamoureux | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 64 - Prop. I | – 094a – Donk | – no | |
| Art. 64 - Prop. K* | – [sn-02] – Deighton | =Art. 67 Prop. B | c.fun.: + |
| Art. 65 - Prop. A | – 250 – Pinto da Silva | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 66 - Prop. A | – 094 – Donk | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 67 - Prop. A | – 094 – Donk | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 67 - Prop. B* | – [sn-02] – Deighton | – yes | c.fun.: + |
| Art. 69 - Prop. A | – 074 – Bullock | – no | |
| Art. 69 - Prop. A | – 124 – Doty & Lamoureux | – no | |
| Art. 69 - Prop. B | – 074 – Bullock | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 69 - Prop. C | – 275 – Prokhanov | – no [mail vote] |
A motion from the floor (Dandy) was rejected, to have an Appendix
with a list of suppressed names (nomina utique rejicienda).
but the example indeed to be deleted.
however, the Section proved to be in favour
of a separately
published list of author abbreviations.
| Citation - Prop. C | – 192 – Váczy | – no | |
| App. III - Prop. A | – 011 – Eichler | – ed.c. | |
| App. III - Prop. B | – 013 – Eichler | – ed.c. | |
| App. III - Prop. C | – 014 – Eichler | – ed.c. | |
| App. III - Prop. D | – 193 – Váczy | – ed.c. | |
| App. III - Prop. E* | – [sn-36] – Gen. Com. | – various c.s | |
| App. III - Prop. F* | – [sn-37] – Gen. Com. | – yes | |
| App. III - Prop. G* | – [sn-38] – Gen. Com. | – yes | |
| App. III - Prop. H* | – [sn-39] – Gen. Com. | – yes | |
| App. III - Prop. I* | – [sn-56] – Prokhanov | – ed.c. | |
| Index - Prop. A | – 265 – Pinto da Silva | – ed.c. | |
| App. IV - Prop. A | – 266 – Pinto da Silva | – no [mail vote] | |
| procedure - Prop. A | – [sn-32] (1) – Ed. Com. | – no | |
| procedure - Prop. B | – [sn-33] (2) – Ed. Com. | – no | |
| procedure - Prop. C | – 101 – Doty & Lamoureux | – no | |
| procedure - Prop. D | – 102 – Doty & Lamoureux | – ed.c. | |
| procedure - Prop. E | – [sn-34] – Buchheim | – not applic. | |
| procedure - Prop. F | – 143 – Grassl | – not applic. | |
| neotype report* | – [sn-40] – Sp.C. neotypes | – no |
The Editorial Committee reported on
its charge to scrutinize
the words description, diagnosis, definition. It proposed to
replace the word description in
Arts. 32,
41 and
42 by the
word diagnosis
(with the same change to be made elsewhere
where consistency requires it), and that
A
diagnosis of a taxon is a statement of a character or
characters considered by the author to be distinctive of
it, whether given separately or within a description.
be added by way of a definition of diagnosis, as a
footnote to
its first occurrence in the Code.
As to its charge to define the word monstrosity, the
Editorial
Committee reported that a majority had been of
the opinion that
the word monstrosity could not be defined at the moment;
the Section decided to take no action.
*
: late proposal, without guiding comment by the Rapporteurs.
‡
: not published, introduced from the floor.
@ : the Committee for Fossil Plants made two reports, one
pre-Congress and one at the Congress (the latter is only
taken into account when it differs).
General notes
In this overview no [mail vote]
indicates that a proposal was
rejected and had received more than 75% no-votes.
At the time,
there was no set procedure
regarding the mail vote, but this
information is included here,
for the sake of clarity and uniformity.
The procedure at Edinburgh was
not to discuss a proposal if this
vote [the mail vote] was clear.
The Section ruled out of order
all proposals which had
reached the Rapporteurs office after 1 February 1964
(the
official deadline was 1 October 1963).
As noted above, at this Congress a split was made: for procedural
matters a simple majority of votes was required,
but for matters
of substance a 60 % majority. This same threshold was also
adopted at all subsequent Congresses (up till Vienna, 2005,
where this was modified).
Many proposals were referred to the Permanent Committees,
which met in Edinburgh and made their decision
on each
proposal then and there.
Committees
Committees to be set up:
•
Standing Committee on Stabilization
(to assist organisations
in determining the correct names of plants
of economic
importance, in accordance with the Code,
for plants with
which they are concerned.
This Committee will be composed
of taxonomists experienced in nomenclatural procedures
and
it is expected that the Committee will consult specialists
wherever appropriate.
The Committee is invited to present its
findings to the Nomenclature Section of the Eleventh
International Botanical Congress).
•
Special Committee for Nomina Ambigua (Art. 69)
(to study
the problem of consistent usage contrary to the results of
typification of old names which were previously not typified).
• (a new) Special Committee on Superfluous Names.
•
Glossary Committee (to put together a Glossary
of technical
terms used in the Code).
•
Special Committee on Post-Linnaean Starting Points
(to study
Art. 13 Prop. A & B (27 & 28 by Proskauer)).
Resolutions
A resolution (Little) was accepted:
The Nomenclature Section affirms
its ardent desire for stable
nomenclature, to be employed by all who use
scientific
botanical names. Over the years,
the International Botanical
Congresses have carefully dealt with improvements
and
clarifications of
the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature. With such stabilization in view,
the Section
appeals to all to adhere carefully to this Code.
This page: 2014 İ, Paul van Rijckevorsel
all rights reserved