CONGRESS ACTION, XVIII IBC (2011)

Congres action on proposals-to-amend-the-Code at the XVIII IBC,
the 2011, Melbourne Congress.  Based on (by permission of the
IAPT):

      John McNeill, Nicholas J. Turland, Anna M. Monro &
             Brendan J. Lepschi,
     “XVIII International Botanical Congress: Preliminary mail vote
      and report of Congress action on nomenclature proposals
      (in Taxon 60: 1507–1520. 2011).

Adjusted according to the proceedings (2014) by Christina Flann,
Nicholas J. Turland and Anna M. Monro, in PhytoKeys 41.

Links mostly go to the relevant page of a PDF, a local copy
(copyright IAPT for the material from Taxon), but some go to the
relevant website.

See also:

   •  conversion table
   •  list of proposals
 

         Synopsis    Proposal as submitted Congress action     Comm. advice
Gen. prop. - Prop. A 016 – Hawksworth & al.   c.alg.:  –, c.fun.:  +

     was accepted as amended (Heerendeen), to reflect the desirability
     of recognizing phycology as well as mycology in the title and the
     other specified places in the Code; also amended (May) to adjust
     the footnote.

           On the final day, a proposal (presented by Norvell) was
     accepted, to change the title from the International Code of
     Botanical, Mycological, and Phycological Nomenclature  to 
     International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.

Gen. prop. - Prop. B 017 – Hawksworth & al.   c.fun.:  +

     was accepted as amended (McNeill, Reveal), so that the Editorial
     Committee, rather than add  “and fungus/fungi”,  was to replace
     “plant(s)”  by  “organism(s)”, where it was intended to include
     all organisms covered by the Code.

Gen. prop. - Prop. C 101 – Cleal & Thomas   c.fos.:  +

     was accepted in the understanding that the Editorial Committee
     would replace the words  “fossil plants”  by  “plant fossils”, 
     “plant, fungal or algal fossils”  (Heerendeen), or just  “fossils”
     (Rijckevorsel, Funk, Malécot), as appropriate.

Preamble - Prop. A 048 – Redhead & al.   c.alg.:  ? c.fun.:  +

     was accepted as amended (Greuter) by deleting the word
     “phylum”  before  “Microsporidia  (see also Art. 13 Prop. A).

Preamble - Prop. B 314 – Gandhi & Reveal    

     was accepted, but it was pointed out (Barrie) that  “oppressed”
     should be changed to  “suppressed”.

Art. 1 - Prop. A 102 – Cleal & Thomas   c.fos.:  +

     was accepted on the understanding (Prud’homme van Reine)
     that fossil taxa do not include diatoms, and that the Editorial
     Committee would make this clear.

Art. 1 - Prop. B 103 – Cleal & Thomas  –  ed.c. c.fos.:  +
Art. 1 - Prop. C 175 – Bateman & Hilton  –  no c.fos.:  –
Art. 1 - Prop. D 176 – Bateman & Hilton  –  no c.fos.:  –
Art. 6 - Prop. A 262 – Turland    

     was accepted as amended (Greuter, Sennikov) to adopt 
     “replacement name”  rather than  “nomen novum” It was also
     suggested (Turland) to adopt “new status”  for  “status novus”
     (It was later pointed out by the Rapporteurs that  “new status” 
     required correction to  “name with a new status”  or  “name at
     a new rank”,  and that the Editorial Committee would handle
     this)

Art. 6 - Prop. B 242 – Turland  –  yes  

On the final day, a motion from the floor (presented by Wiersema)
was accepted (but with the Editorial Committee to clean it up), to
amend Art. 6.4 second sentence, 18.3, and 19.5, to read (deleted
text struck-out; new text in bold):

   “6.4. … A name which according to this Code was illegitimate
     when published cannot become legitimate later unless it (or,
     in the case of names of families or subdivisions of families,
     the name on which it is based) is conserved or sanctioned.”

   “18.3. A name of a family based on an illegitimate generic
     name is illegitimate unless it or the generic name upon
     which it is based is conserved.”

   “19.5. A name of a subdivision of a family based on an
     illegitimate generic name that is not the base of a conserved
     family name is illegitimate unless the generic name upon
     which it is based is conserved or is the base of a conserved
     family name.”

Art. 7 - Prop. A 263 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 7 - Prop. B 315 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  ed.c.  
Art. 7 - Prop. C 276 – Perry  –  yes  
Art. 7 - Prop. D 155 – Sennikov  –  no  
Art. 7 - Prop. E 156 – Sennikov    

     was accepted as amended (Greuter) by inserting  “of a new taxon”
     after  “A name”  at the beginning.

Art. 7 - Prop. F 157 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 7 - Prop. G 214 – Perry  –  ed.c.  
Art. 7 - Prop. H 223 – Redhead & al.  –  replaced c.fun.:  –
Art. 7 - Prop. I 224 – Redhead & al.  –  replaced c.fun.:  +
Art. 7 - Prop. J 221 – Perry  –  replaced c.fun.:  –
Art. 7 - Prop. K 087 – Rabeler & Gandhi    

     was referred to the Editorial Committee, as recommended by the
     Rapporteurs, to implement the intent by inserting  “(See also
     Art. 7.11)”  at the end of Art. 9.21.

Art. 7 - Prop. L 183 – Gams  –  no c.fun.:  +
Art. 7 - Prop. M 266 – Turland  –  withdrawn  
Art. 8 - Prop. A 216 – Perry  –  yes c.alg.:   ?
Art. 8 - Prop. B 135 – Traverse  –  no c.fos.:  –
Art. 8 - Prop. C 158 – Bandyopadhyay & Pathak  –  no (mail vote)  

A motion from the floor (Prud’homme van Reine) was accepted to
amend Art. 8.4 (addition in bold):

   “(e.g. by lyzophilization or deep-freezing to remain alive in that
     inactive state)”

Rec. 8A - Prop. A 078 – Rijckevorsel  –  no  
Rec. 8A - Prop. B 009 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 8A - Prop. C 284 – Perry  –  no (autom.)  
Rec. 8A - Prop. D 014 – Bandyopadhyay & Pathak  –  no  
Rec. 8B - Prop. A 138 – Nakada  –  yes c.alg.:  + c.fun.:  +
Art. 9 - Prop. A 159 – Moran & al.  –  no  
Art. 9 - Prop. B 160 – Moran & al.  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. C 161 – Moran & al.  –  no  
Art. 9 - Prop. D 162 – Moran & al.  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. E 215 – Perry  –  no  
Art. 9 - Prop. F 217 – Perry  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. G 218 – Perry  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. H 219 – Perry  –  yes al.: +, br.: +, fo.: +
Art. 9 - Prop. I 220 – Perry  –  replaced  [  ] c.fun.:  –
Art. 9 - Prop. J 225 – Redhead & al.  –  replaced c.fun.:  +
Art. 9 - Prop. K 228 – Redhead & al.  –  replaced c.fun.:  +
Art. 9 - Prop. L 232 – Redhead & al.  –  replaced c.fun.:  +
Art. 9 - Prop. M 226 – Redhead & al.  –  replaced c.fun.:  +
Art. 9 - Prop. N 285 – Perry  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 9 - Prop. O 233 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. P 234 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. Q 025 – Rijckevorsel  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. R 010 – Niederle  –  no  
Art. 9 - Prop. S 011 – Niederle  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. T 024 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. U 136 – Traverse  –  no (autom.) c.fos.:  –
Art. 9 - Prop. V 294 – Redhead  –  replaced c.fun.:  +
Art. 9 - Prop. W 295 – Redhead  –  replaced c.fun.:  +
Art. 9 - Prop. X 163 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. Y 316 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. Z 021 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. AA 080 – Proćków  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. BB 081 – Proćków  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. CC 082 – Proćków  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. DD 084 – Pathak & Bandyopadhyay  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. EE 085 – Bandyopadhyay & Pathak  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. FF 083 – Prado & al.  –  ed.c. (as a Rec.)  
Art. 9 - Prop. GG 104 – Yu & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. HH 139 – Proćków & Jakubska-Busse  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. II 086 – Rabeler & Gandhi  –  no (mail vote)  

A motion from the floor (Malécot) to add a Recommendation
defining  “paralectotype”  was rejected.

Rec. 9A - Prop. A 088 – Prado & Moran  –  no  
Rec. 9A - Prop. B 028 – Bandyopadhyay & Pathak  –  no  
Rec. 9A - Prop. C 029 – Bandyopadhyay & Pathak  –  no  
Rec. 9A - Prop. D 109 – Basu & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 9C - Prop. A 231 – Redhead & al.  –  replaced c.fun.:  +
Art. 10 - Prop. A 238 – Proćków & Jakubska-Busse  –  yes  

    [the suggestion of the Rapporteurs to delete the whole of
     Art. 10.5(a) was proposed and rejected]

Art. 10 - Prop. B 317 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  sp.c.  
Art. 10 - Prop. C 227 – Redhead & al.  –  replaced c.fun.:  +
Art. 11 - Prop. A 022 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  

On the final day, a motion from the floor (Heerendeen, on behalf
of the Committee on Fossils), was accepted, to delete all reference to
“subfossils” from the Code (i.e. from Art. 11.8).

Art. 13 - Prop. A 049 – Redhead & al.   c.fun.:  + 

     was accepted as amended (Dorr) to read  “Names of Microsporidia
     are governed …”  (see also Preamble Prop. A).

Art. 13 - Prop. B 165 – Silva  –  sp.c. c.alg.:  –
Art. 13 - Prop. C 089 – Sennikov  –  withdrawn  
Art. 14 - Prop. A 243 – Perry  –  yes  
Art. 14 - Prop. B 006 – Moore & Rushworth    

     was accepted as amended (Greuter, Wiersema) adding the words
      “except in the case of correctable errors”.

Art. 14 - Prop. C 305 – Redhead  –  replaced c.fun.:  +
Art. 14 - Prop. D 239 – Turland    

     was accepted as amended with  “authors together with the places
     and dates of publication”  reduced to  “places of publication” 
     (Wiersema) and with  “including names that otherwise would
     not be validly published”  appended (Greuter, Redhead). It was
     also suggested to add  “, except under the provisions of Art. 14.12,
     (Rijckevorsel, Reveal).

Art. 14 - Prop. E 240 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 14 - Prop. F 241 – Turland  –  no  
Art. 14 - Prop. G 099 – Redhead   c.alg.:  –

     the general principle of this proposal was accepted (Knapp): 
     “The Editorial Committee has the option to produce the
     Appendices to the Code in electronic form only.”

Art. 14 - Prop. H 098 – Redhead  –  ed.c.  
Art. 14 - Prop. I 100 – Redhead  –  ed.c.  

On the final day, a motion from the floor (Hawksworth), to
extend conservation to all ranks, was rejected.

Art. 15 - Prop. A 185 – Demoulin  –  yes c.fun.:  +
Art. 15 - Prop. B 229 – Redhead & al.  –  replaced c.fun.:  +
Art. 15 - Prop. C 230 – Redhead & al.  –  replaced c.fun.:  +
Art. 16 - Prop. A 246 – Redhead    

     was accepted as amended (Greuter) so that the first portion of
     the second sentence of Art. 16.1 will read:

       “Such names may be either (a) automatically typified names,
         formed from the genitive singular of a name of an included
         genus by replacing the genitive singular inflection (Latin
         -ae, -i, -us, -is; transliterated Greek -ou, -os, -es, -as, or -ous,
         and its equivalent -eos) with the appropriate termination;”.

Art. 16 - Prop. B 030 – Rijckevorsel  –  withdrawn  
Art. 16 - Prop. C 031 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 16 - Prop. D 247 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  no  
Art. 16 - Prop. E 182 – Brummitt  –  no  
Art. 16 - Prop. F 181 – Brummitt    

     was accepted, with the proviso that it would be a strictly editorial
     rearrangement, without deleting any provision.

Art. 16 - Prop. G 178 – Brummitt  –  no (autom.)  
Rec. 16A - Prop. A 166 – Silva  –  yes  
Rec. 16B - Prop. A 179 – Brummitt  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 18 - Prop. A 032 – Rijckevorsel  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 18 - Prop. B 033 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 18 - Prop. C 248 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  no  
Art. 18 - Prop. D 249 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  no  
Art. 18 - Prop. E 110 – Alfarhan & al.  –  no  
Art. 18 - Prop. F 111 – Alfarhan & al.  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 18 - Prop. G 112 – Alfarhan & al.  –  no (autom.)  
    [see above]      
Art. 19 - Prop. A 034 – Rijckevorsel  –  yes  
Art. 19 - Prop. B 035 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 19 - Prop. C 036 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 19 - Prop. D 113 – Alfarhan & al.  –  no  
Art. 19 - Prop. E 114 – Alfarhan & al.  –  no (autom.)  
    [see above]      
Art. 20 - Prop. A 122 – Rijckevorsel  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 20 - Prop. B 123 – Rijckevorsel  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 22 - Prop. A 168 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 22 - Prop. B 318 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  ed.c.  
Art. 23 - Prop. A 140 – Niederle  –  no  
Art. 23 - Prop. B 141 – Linda in Arcadia  –  ed.c.  
Art. 23 - Prop. C 127 – Rijckevorsel  –  withdrawn  
Art. 28 - Prop. A 142 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 28 - Prop. B 143 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 28 - Prop. C 144 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 28 - Prop. D 145 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 29 - Prop. A 203 – Sp.C. electr. publ.   c.fos.:  +, c.fun.:  +

     was accepted as amended (Heerendeen, Karen Wilson, Soreng,
     McNeill, Hawksworth, Paton, Nic Lughadha) by the addition
     after  “Portable Document Format”  of the words “or a successor
     international standard format communicated by the General
     Committee”.

         [An amendment (Soreng) to require registration of
     electronically published names was rejected.  As was an
     amendment (Janarthanam) to require peer review]

Art. 29 - Prop. B 204 – Sp.C. electr. publ.  –  yes c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +
Art. 29 - Prop. C 205 – Sp.C. electr. publ.  –  yes c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +
Rec. 29A - Prop. A 210 – Sp.C. electr. publ.   c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +

     was accepted as amended (Karen Wilson) by deletion of
     “–1:2005”  in  “PDF/A archival standard (ISO 19005–1:2005)”,
     (as unnecessary).

Rec. 29A - Prop. B 211 – Sp.C. electr. publ.   c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +

     was accepted as amended, so that the first clause reads: 

        “Authors should preferably publish in publications that are
          archived, …” (Greuter).

     and clause (a) changed to:

       “The material should be placed in multiple trusted online
         digital repositories, e.g. an ISO-certified repository;  (Penev).”

     and an additional clause (c) added:

       “Deposition of printed copies in libraries in more than one
         area of the world and preferably on different continents is
         also advisable.” (Demoulin, Veldkamp).

Art. 30 - Prop. A 206 – Sp.C. electr. publ.   c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +

     was accepted as amended (Ladiges, Paton) by the replacement
     of  “1 January 2013”  with  “1 January 2012”.

Art. 30 - Prop. B 207 – Sp.C. electr. publ.   c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +

     was accepted as amended (Nic Lughadha, McNeill) by the
     addition of the words  “associated with or within the publication”
     after  “evidence”.

Art. 30 - Prop. C 149 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 30A - Prop. A 212 – Sp.C. electr. publ.  –  yes c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +
Rec. 30A - Prop. B 213 – Sp.C. electr. publ.  –  yes c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +
Rec. 30A - Prop. C 150 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 31 - Prop. A 208 – Sp.C. electr. publ.  –  yes c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +
Art. 31 - Prop. B 209 – Sp.C. electr. publ.  –  yes c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +

    [an amendment (Greuter) to give precedence to one version in
     the case of simultaneous publication of paper and electronic
     versions was rejected;  also a motion from the floor (Bill
     Barker, McNeill, Turland, Greuter, Buck) to give precedence
     to the electronic version when paper and electronic versions
     of the same date differ]

Rec. 31A - Prop. A 151 – Pathak & al.  –  no  
Art. 32 - Prop. A 177 – Brummitt  –  no  
Art. 32 - Prop. B 169 – George  –  no  
Art. 32 - Prop. C 126 – Rijckevorsel  –  withdrawn  
Art. 32 - Prop. D 128 – Rijckevorsel  –  yes  
Art. 32 - Prop. E 264 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 32 - Prop. F 250 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  ed.c.  
Art. 32 - Prop. G 277 – Perry  –  yes  
Art. 32 - Prop. H 281 – Perry  –  no  
Art. 32 - Prop.  I 283 – Perry  –  no  
Art. 32 - Prop.  J 090 – Redhead  –  ed.c.  
Art. 32 - Prop. K 091 – Redhead  –  withdrawn  

A motion from the floor (Woelkerling, communicated by
Prud’homme van Reine) to alter the definition of “diagnosis”
was rejected.  Also a rewrite (Cameron & Prud’homme van
Reine), presented on the final day.  Also, a proposal to alter
Rec. 32B (Veldkamp, also on the final day).

A motion from the floor (Prud’homme van Reine) was accepted,
to establish an Appendix listing binding decisions made under
Art. 32.4 (on the valid publication of names).

Rec. 32Bbis - Prop. A 026 – Rijckevorsel  –  no  
Rec. 32Bbis - Prop. B 079 – Rijckevorsel  –  no  
Art. 33 - Prop. A 319 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  ed.c.  [   ]  
Art. 33 - Prop. B 119 – Hawksworth & al.  –  yes c.fun.:  +

A motion from the floor (Wiersema, McNeill, Greuter) was
accepted to give the Editorial Committee a mandate to restructure
Chapter IV Section 2 (Art. 32-45) without changing the meaning
of any provision.

Art. 33 - Prop. C 265 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 33 - Prop. D 267 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 33 - Prop. E 251 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  ed.c.  
Art. 33 - Prop. F 252 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  ed.c.  
Art. 33 - Prop. G 268 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 33 - Prop. H 269 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 33 - Prop. I  023 – Rijckevorsel  –  withdrawn  
Art. 33 - Prop.  J 092 – Saxena  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 33 - Prop. K 093 – Saxena  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 33 - Prop. L 320 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 33 - Prop. M 270 – Turland  –  ed.c.  
Art. 33 - Prop. N 321 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  ed.c.  
Art. 33 - Prop. O 275 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 33 - Prop. P 322 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  withdrawn  
Rec. 33A - Prop. A 271 – Turland  –  yes  
Rec. 33A - Prop. B 094 – Saxena  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 34 - Prop. A 323 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 35 - Prop. A 253 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  yes  
Art. 35 - Prop. B 272 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 36 - Prop. A 115 – Figueiredo & al.  –  no (mail vote)                  c.fos.:  –
Art. 36 - Prop. B 170 – Williams & Brodie  –  no (mail vote) c.alg.:  – c.fos.:  –
Art. 36 - Prop. C 186 – Demoulin  –  yes c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +
Art. 36 - Prop. D 187 – Demoulin  –  yes c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +
Art. 36 - Prop. E 188 – Demoulin  –  yes c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  +

A motion from the floor (Smith) was accepted, to extend  “Latin
or English”  to all organisms covered by the Code.

A motion from the floor (Sennikov) was accepted, to bring the
starting date forward to 1 January 2012.

Rec. 36A - Prop. A 037 – Filgueiras & Prado  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 36A - Prop. B 116 – Figueiredo & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 36A - Prop. C 189 – Demoulin  –  ed.c. c.fun.:  +
Art. 37 - Prop. A 038 – Kumar & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 37 - Prop. B 171 – Pathak & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 37 - Prop. C 001 – Mottram & Gorelick  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 37 - Prop. D 164 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 37 - Prop. E 191 – Ohashi & Ohashi  –  ed.c.  
Art. 37 - Prop. F 105 – Yu & al.  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 37A - Prop. A 004 – Shui & Wen    

     was accepted as amended (Greuter, McNeill, Kirk, Hawksworth,
     McNeill, Thiele) so that the new paragraph would begin:

       “A number permanently identifying the specimen, if
         present, …

Rec. 37A - Prop. B 015 – Pathak & Bandyopadhyay  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 37A - Prop. C 152 – Ohashi & Ohashi  –  yes  
Rec. 37A - Prop. D 153 – Ohashi & Ohashi  –  yes  
Rec. 37B - Prop. A 005 – Pathak & Bandyopadhyay  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 37bis - Prop. A 117 – Hawksworth & al.   c.fun.:  +

     was accepted as amended by

     - adding (Greuter) in Art. 37bis.1 (after  “For”):  “new names
       of”

     - rephrasing (Norvell) Art. 37bis.1, so that the text read 
       “…the citation of the identifier issued by a recognized
       repository for the name (Art. 37bis.3) in the…”

     - appending (Norvell) to Art. 37bis.2 the clause

           “when accessioned and published information for an
             identifier differ the published information shall be
             considered definitive”, and

     - deleting (May) the asterisked footnote in Art. 37bis.3.

On the final day, a motion from the floor (Marhold) was rejected,
to add vascular plants.

Rec. 37bisA - Prop. A 118 – Hawksworth & al.   c.fun.:  +

     was accepted as amended (Greuter, Kirk, McNeill), replacing
     “minimal”  by  “required”  before  “elements of information”.

Rec. 37bisA - Prop. B 184 – Gams   c.fun.:  +

     was accepted, with the suggestion (Reveal) that in the last line
     “record number”  be changed to  “identifier”.

Art. 38 - Prop. A 192 – Doweld  –  yes c.fos.:  +
Art. 38 - Prop. B 193 – Doweld  –  ed.c. c.fos.:  –
Art. 38 - Prop. C 137 – Traverse  –  no (autom.) c.fos.:  –
Art. 41 - Prop. A 288 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. B 289 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. C 254 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  no  
Art. 41 - Prop. D 255 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  ed.c.          
Art. 41 - Prop. E 256 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  ed.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. F 257 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  ed.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. G 258 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  ed.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. H 259 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  ed.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop.  I 260 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  ed.c.  
Art. 42 - Prop. A 194 – Prado & Hirai  –  no  
Art. 42 - Prop. B 195 – Prado & Hirai  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 42 - Prop. C 196 – Prado & Hirai  –  ed.c.  
Art. 42 - Prop. D 290 – Brummitt  –  no  
Art. 42 - Prop. E 039 – Braga & Joffily  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 42 - Prop. F 040 – Braga & Joffily  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 42 - Prop. G 198 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 43 - Prop. A 324 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  ed.c.  
Art. 44 - Prop. A 041 – Braga & Joffily  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 45 - Prop. A 050 – Redhead & al.  –  ed.c. c.alg.:  ? c.fun.:  +
Art. 45 - Prop. B 190 – Demoulin  –  yes c.alg.: (+) c.fun.:  +
Art. 46 - Prop. A 180 – Brummitt  –  no  

    [having been amended (Greuter, McNeill, Reveal, McNeill),
     to form a Recommendation:

       “Author citations should not be used after names of taxa
         above the rank of family.”]

Art. 46 - Prop. B 278 – Perry  –  yes  
Art. 46 - Prop. C 279 – Perry  –  ed.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop. D 280 – Perry  –  ed.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop. E 282 – Perry  –  ed.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop. F 286 – Perry  –  no  
Art. 46 - Prop. G 287 – Perry  –  ed.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop. H 120 – Linda in Arcadia  –  ed.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop.  I 325 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  no  
Art. 46 - Prop.  J 326 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  ed.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop. K 327 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  yes  
Art. 46 - Prop. L 121 – Hawksworth & Eriksson  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 46 - Prop. M 197 – Rijckevorsel  –  no  
Art. 46 - Prop. N 235 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 46 - Prop. O 236 – Turland  –  yes / ed.c.  

On the final day, a motion from the floor (Reveal) was accepted
as amended (Greuter), to convert Art. 46 Note 4 into a rule,
appropriately worded.

Rec. 46D - Prop. A 042 – Nobis & al.  –  no  
Art. 48 - Prop. A 273 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 48 - Prop. B 291 – Perry  –  yes  
Art. 48 - Prop. C 328 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  ed.c.  
Art. 49 - Prop. A 329 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  no  
Art. 51 - Prop. A 292 – Brummitt  –  no  

The proposal published by Turland (in Taxon 60: 913–914. 2011)
on Acacia was raised from the floor (Schrire).  After discussion,
in which “Protoacacia” was replaced by “Acanthacacia”, this
was rejected.  [The Rijckevorsel proposal was not discussed.]

Art. 52 - Prop. A 293 – Perry  –  ed.c.  
Art. 52 - Prop. B 330 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  ed.c.  
Art. 52 - Prop. C 331 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 52 - Prop. D 332 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  withdrawn  
Art. 53 - Prop. A 043 – Rijckevorsel  –  withdrawn  
Art. 53 - Prop. B 261 – Reveal & Gandhi  –  ed.c.  
Art. 53 - Prop. C 012 – Huang & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 53 - Prop. D 013 – Huang & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 53 - Prop. E 095 – Yu & al.    

     was accepted, with the Editorial Committee to consider if all
     the adjectival forms with the stems  “tibet-”  and  “thibet-
     need be included in the Code.

Art. 53 - Prop. F 096 – Yu & al.  –  no  
Art. 53 - Prop. G 167 – Silva  –  yes  
Art. 53 - Prop. H 027 – Rijckevorsel  –  yes  

A motion from the floor (Silva, communicated by Prud’homme
van Reine) to introduce the term  “parahomonym”  in the Code
was rejected.

Art. 54 - Prop. A 051 – Redhead & al.  –  withdrawn c.fun.:  +
Art. 55 - Prop. A 333 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  ed.c.  
Art. 58 - Prop. A 274 – Turland  –  yes  
Art. 58 - Prop. B 334 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  ed.c.  
Chap. VI - Prop. A 306 – Redhead  –  yes c.fun.:  +
Art. 59 - Prop. A 172 – Gams & al.  –  no (mail vote) c.fun.:  – sp.c.:  –
Art. 59 - Prop. B 173 – Gams & al.  –  no (mail vote) c.fun.:  ± sp.c.:  –
Art. 59 - Prop. C 296 – Redhead  –  replaced c.fun.:  + sp.c.:  +
Art. 59 - Prop. D 297 – Redhead  –  replaced c.fun.:  + sp.c.:  ?
Art. 59 - Prop. E 298 – Redhead  –  replaced c.fun.:  + sp.c.:  ?
Art. 59 - Prop. F 299 – Redhead  –  replaced c.fun.:  + sp.c.:  +
Art. 59 - Prop. G 300 – Redhead  –  replaced c.fun.:  + sp.c.:  +
Art. 59 - Prop. H 301 – Redhead  –  replaced c.fun.:  + sp.c.:  +
Art. 59 - Prop. I 302 – Redhead  –  replaced c.fun.:  + sp.c.:  ?
Art. 59 - Prop. J 303 – Redhead  –  replaced c.fun.:  + sp.c.:  +
Art. 59 - Prop. K 304 – Redhead  –  replaced c.fun.:  + sp.c.:  +
Art. 59 - Prop. L 307 – Gams & al.  –  no (autom.) c.fun.:  + sp.c.:  –
Art. 59 - Prop. M 308 – Gams & al.  –  no (mail vote) c.fun.:  – sp.c.:  –
Art. 59 - Prop. N 309 – Gams & al.  –  no (mail vote) c.fun.:  – sp.c.:  –
Art. 59 - Prop. O 310 – Gams & al.  –  no (mail vote) c.fun.:  ± sp.c.:  –
Art. 59 - Prop. P 311 – Gams & al.  –  no (mail vote) c.fun.:  ± sp.c.:  –
Rec. 59A - Prop. A 174 – Gams & al.  –  no (mail vote) c.fun.:  ± sp.c.:  –
Rec. 59A - Prop. B 312 – Gams & al.  –  no (mail vote) c.fun.:  ± sp.c.:  –
Rec. 59A - Prop. C 313 – Gams & al.  –  no (mail vote) c.fun.:  ± sp.c.:  –
Art. 60 - Prop. A 335 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. B 003 – Drobnik & Bacler  –  no  

A motion from the floor (Greuter) was accepted to replace
“is permissible”  in the third sentence of Art. 60.6 with  “is an
optional phonetic device that is not considered to alter the
spelling and is thus permissible.”

Art. 60 - Prop. C 007 – Moore & Rushworth  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. D 129 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. E 237 – Turland  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. F 097 – Rabeler & Gandhi  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. G 124 – Rijckevorsel    

     was accepted with the addition (Greuter), at the end of the
     sentence, of:

       “Abbreviated names and epithets are to be expanded in
         conformity with botanical tradition.”

Art. 60 - Prop. H 125 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. I  047 – Dorr  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop.  J 130 – Rijckevorsel  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. K 131 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. L 132 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. M 133 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. N 134 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 60C - Prop. A 046 – Dorr  –  withdrawn  
Rec. 60I - Prop. A 045 – Dorr  –  withdrawn  
Rec. 60H - Prop. A 002 – Drobnik & Bacler  –  no  
Art. 61 - Prop. A 336 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  ed.c.  
Art. 61 - Prop. B 337 – Gandhi & Reveal  –  no  
Art. 62 - Prop. A 154 – Barker & Brummitt  –  no  

A motion from the floor (Demoulin) was accepted, and referred
to the Editorial Committee, to replace in Art. 62 *Ex. 1
Eucalyptus L’Hér., which lacks a botanical tradition”  by 
Eucalyptus L’Hér., which has a botanical tradition, even if
limited in time”.

Div. III - Prop. A 338 – Stotler & Isoviita  –  yes c.bry.: +
Div. III - Prop. B 199 – Landrum  –  sp.c. c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  –
Div. III - Prop. C 200 – Landrum  –  sp.c. c.fos.:  + c.fun.:  –
Div. III - Prop. D 201 – Landrum  –  no (mail vote) c.fos.:  ?

A motion from the floor (Landrum, communicated by Lewis) to
conduct the Nomenclature Section on the www was rejected.

Div. III - Prop. E 202 – Landrum  –  sp.c. c.fos.:  ? c.fun.:  –
Div. III - Prop. F 018 – Hawksworth & al.  –  sp.subc. c.fun.:  +
Div. III - Prop. G 019 – Hawksworth & al.  –  sp.subc. c.fun.:  –
Div. III - Prop. H 020 – Hawksworth & al.  –  sp.subc. c.fun.:  –
Art. H.1 - Prop. A 146 – Rijckevorsel  –  withdrawn  
Art. H.2 - Prop. A 147 – Rijckevorsel  –  withdrawn  
Art. H.6 - Prop. A 148 – Rijckevorsel  –  withdrawn  
App. III - Prop. A 008 – Moore & Rushworth  –  ed.c.  
App. III - Prop. B 106 – Yu & al.  –  yes  
App. III - Prop. C 107 – Yu & al.  –  yes  
App. III - Prop. D 244 – Perry  –  yes  
App. III - Prop. E 245 – Perry  –  yes  
App. IV - Prop. A 108 – Yu & al.  –  yes  
Gloss. - Prop. A 052 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. B 053 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. C 054 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. D 055 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. E 056 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. F 057 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. G 058 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. H 059 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop.  I 060 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop.  J 061 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. K 062 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. L 063 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. M 064 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. N 065 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. O 066 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. P 067 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. Q 068 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. R 069 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. S 070 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. T 071 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. U 072 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. V 073 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. W 074 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. X 075 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. Y 076 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. Z 077 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. AA 044 – Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gloss. - Prop. BB 222 – Perry  –  ed.c.  

 
Committees

Special Committees (to report to the XIX IBC) to be set up on:

publications using a largely mechanical method of selection of
   types (Art. 10.5);  this Committee to develop a list of works that
   are deemed to have followed the American Code (Arthur & al.
   in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 34: 167-178. 1907; and its precursor,
   id. 31: 249-290. 1904), in which the method of type selection
   is “considered to be largely mechanical” (especially under the
   American Code).  Art. 10 Prop. B (317 by Gandhi & Reveal)
   was referred to it.

by-laws for the Nomenclature Section.  Div. III Prop. B, C & E
   (Prop. 199, 200 & 202 by Landrum) were referred to it, as well
   as the motion from the floor to have the Nomenclature Section
   on the www.

     - This Committee to have a subcommittee on governance of
       the Code with respect to fungi;  Div. III Prop. F, G & H (18,
       19 & 20 by Hawksworth & al.) were referred to it.

institutional votes,

registration of algal and plant names (including fossils).

harmonization of nomenclature of Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria.
   Art. 13 Prop. B (165 by Silva) was referred to it.

A motion to establish a Committee on the BioCode was declined.
Also, it was resolved to change the name of the Committee for
Bryophyta to the Committee for Bryophytes and that of the
Committee for Fossil Plants to the Committee on Fossils.

 
Fungi

In addition to the proposals published in Taxon, the Nomenclature
Section in Melbourne dealt with proposals raised then and there.
Most prominent among these were the following final proposals
(formulated over the time that the Section met), dealing with names
of fungi.
 
Typification of sanctioned names

Finally (replacing the published proposals on sanctiotypification,
as well as an intermediate set of proposals), the following set of
proposals (presented by Norvell, on behalf of Redhead, Pennycook,
herself, Perry, Greuter, Demoulin and Hawksworth) on the
typification of sanctioned names was accepted (new wording in
bold):

•  Reword Art. 7.8, and position it to follow Art. 8.1:

     “8.1bis. The type of a name of a species or infraspecific
       taxon adopted in one of the works specified in Art. 13.1(d),
       and thereby sanctioned (Art. 15), may be selected from
       among the elements associated with the name in the
       protologue and/or the sanctioning treatment.”

•  Add a sentence at the end of Art. 9.2:

     “9.2. A lectotype is …. For sanctioned names, a lectotype
       may be selected from among elements associated with
       either or both the protologue and the sanctioning
       treatment.

•  Amend Art. 10.2:

     “10.2. If in the protologue of the name of a genus or of any
       subdivision of a genus the holotype or lectotype of one or
       more previously or simultaneously published species name(s)
       is definitely included (see Art. 10.3), the type must be
       chosen (Art. 7.10 and 7.11) from among these types unless:
       a) the type was indicated (Art. 22.6, 22.7, 37.1 and 37.3)
       or designated by the author of the name; b) the name was
       sanctioned, in which case the type may also be chosen
       from among the types of species names included in the
       sanctioning treatment.
If no type of a previously or
       simultaneously published species name was definitely
       included, a type must be otherwise chosen, but the choice is
       to be superseded if it can be demonstrated that the selected
       type is not conspecific with any of the material associated
       with the protologue or associated with a name in a
       sanctioning treatment.

•  Amend Art. 10.5:

     “10.5. The author who first designates a type of a name of a
       genus or subdivision of a genus must be followed, but the
       choice may be superseded if (a) it can be shown that it is in
       serious conflict with the protologue (or, for a sanctioned
       name, typified under Art. 8.1bis, with the sanctioning
       treatment) and another element is available which is not
       in conflict with the protologue, or (b) that it was based on a
       largely mechanical method of selection.”
     [The struck-out text had been deleted earlier by the
       acceptance of Art. 10 Prop. A (Prop. 238).]

•  Add a new paragraph to Art. 48:

     “48.1bis. Where a sanctioning author accepted an earlier
       name but did not include, even implicitly, any element
       associated with its protologue, or when the protologue
       did not include the subsequently designated type of the
       sanctioned name, the sanctioning author is considered
       to have created a later homonym, treated as conserved
       under Art. 15.1.
 
Fungi with a pleomorphic life cycle

The following set of proposals (presented by Redhead), relating
to fungi with a pleomorphic life cycle, was accepted as amended
(May, Greuter, McNeill, Funk, Rijckevorsel, Greuter, Barrie,
Sennikov, Applequist, Barrie, Greuter, McNeill, Greuter, May,
Barrie, Greuter) (with later editorial adjustments approved by
the proposers incorporated):

•  Replace the entire Article 59 with:

     “59.1. On and after 1 January 2013, all names of fungi,
       including fungi with mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs)
       as well as a meiotic sexual morph (teleomorph), must
       conform to all the provisions of this Code that are not
       restricted in application to other groups of organisms or
       from which names of fungi are not specifically excluded.

     “Note 1. Previous editions of this Code provided for
       separate names for so called “form-taxa”, asexual forms
       (anamorphs) of certain pleomorphic fungi, and restricted
       the names applicable to the whole fungus to those typified
       by a teleomorph.  All legitimate fungal names are now
       treated equally for the purposes of establishing priority,
       regardless of the life history stage of the type.

     “59.2. Names published prior to 1 January 2013 for the same
       taxon of non lichenized Ascomycota and Basidiomycota with
       the intent or implied intent of applying to, or being typified
       by separate morphs (e.g., anamorph, synanamorph or
       teleomorph) are not considered to be alternative names under
       Art. 34.2; nor are they to be treated as nomenclaturally
       superfluous under Art. 52.1.  If they are otherwise legitimate,
       they compete in providing the correct name for the taxon
       under Art. 11.3 and 11.4.”

•  In Art. 34.2, in the first sentence add  “(but see Art. 59.2)”.

•  In Art. 52.1, after mention of Art. 52.3 add  “and 59.2”.

•  Corollaries:

   - in Art. 1.3, delete the phrase,  “As in the case of form-taxa
     for asexual forms (anamorphs) of certain pleomorphic fungi
     (Art. 59),”,

   - in Art. 7.4, delete reference to Art. 59.6,

   - in Art. 7.9, remove reference to Art. 59 and remove Note 1,

   - in Art. 9.7, remove  “(but see also Art. 59.7)”,

   - in Art. 11.1, remove  “form-taxa of fungi and”  and reference
     to Art. 59.4 and 59.5,

   - in Art. 11.3, remove reference to Art. 59,

   - in Art. 51.1, delete the phrase  “, or (in pleomorphic fungi
     with names governed by Art. 59) because the morph
     represented by its type is not in accordance with that of the
     type of the generic name.”

•  Add a new paragraph to Article 14:

     “14.n. For organisms treated as fungi under this Code, lists
       of names may be submitted to the General Committee,
       which will refer them to the Nomenclature Committee
       for Fungi for examination by subcommittees established
       by that Committee in consultation with the General
       Committee and appropriate international bodies.  Accepted
       names on these lists, which become permanent as
       Appendices XX–YY once reviewed by the Nomenclature
       Committee for Fungi and the General Committee, are to be
       listed with their types together with those competing
       synonyms (including sanctioned names) against which they
       are treated as conserved.  For lists of rejected names see
       Art. 56.n.”

•  Add a new paragraph to Art. 56 [specifically referred to the
   Editorial Committee for wording and placement]:

     “56.n. For organisms treated as fungi under this Code, lists of
       rejected names may also be included in the Appendices
       established under Art. 14.n.  Such names are to be treated as
       though rejected outright under Art. 56.1 and may become
       eligible for use only by conservation under Art. 14.”

•  Add a new paragraph to Art. 57:

     “57.2. In pleomorphic fungi, in cases where, prior to 1 January
       2013, both teleomorph-typified and anamorph-typified names
       were widely used for a taxon, an anamorph-typified name that
       has priority must not be taken up until retention of the
       teleomorph-typified name has been considered by the General
       Committee and rejected.”
 
Lichenized fungi

•  Subsequently, a motion from the floor (Lendemer), to add a
   new paragraph to Art. 14, was accepted, as amended (Reveal):

     “14.n[bis]. Lichenized fungi, and those fungi traditionally
       associated with them taxonomically (e.g. Mycocaliciaceae,
       but not lichenicolous fungi), are exempt from the newly
       accepted provisions in Art. 14.n, 56.n, and 57.2.”

 
 
 
 
 


2011 ©, IAPT (Report on Congress action);
2014 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel (this page)