CONVERSION TABLE, V IBC (1930)

Conversion table for proposals to amend the International Rules
of Botanical Nomenclature, ed. 2 (Brussels Rules) submitted
to the V IBC, the 1930, Cambridge Congress.  Congress action
based on the Proceedings.

Links mostly go to local copies (copyright varies).

See also:

   •  Congress action
   •  list of proposals
 

There were two pre-Congress publications to help the Congress.
The synopsis of proposals, the Recueil synoptique (with a blue
cover), offers a synoptic view of the proposals accompanied by
the recommendations of the Rapporteur, while the Avis préalable
(with a yellow cover) provides the votes of twenty-four members
of the various “Commissions de nomenclature” who had
responded to a request to vote.
     Both these publications are entirely in French, which means that
all proposals were translated into French, and were presented as
proposals to amend the French text of the Rules (then the official
version).  As a consequence, proposals to editorially improve the
English text were out of scope and were not included in the
Recueil synoptique.
     At the Congress (and in both publications), all provisions were
dealt with one-by-one, even those for which no proposal-to-amend
had been submitted.  Here, only proposed changes and decisions to
change have been included.

The Section decided to restrict itself to discussing only the proposals
that had been accepted in the Avis préalable.  From the proposal to
add a new Art. 20bis onwards, all proposals that had received twelve
or more votes in the pre-vote were ruled as accepted without
discussion (but with the Editorial Committee empowered to make
adjustments as necessary).

At this time, the format  “Art. B 11”  was used to number proposals.
For convenience sake, this has been converted here to the latter-day
format  “Art. 11 Prop. B”.  An asterisk (*) here accompanying a vote
in the Avis préalable indicates that this offers not just a vote but also
an additional comment (or comments).
     Quotations taken from the Proceedings (which are entirely in
French) are rendered in English, taken from the corresponding
parts of the Code.
 

 
Notes to proposals

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 6 (Art. 6 Prop. A) [commentary] was
    accepted as amended (Janchen, in the Avis préalable) replacing 
    “with their original zoological status”  by  “in the form prescribed
    by the rules of botanical nomenclature”.

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 7 (Art. 7 Prop. B) [commentary] was
    accepted as amended, to replace  “should be in Latin or Greek” 
    by  “should be taken from Latin or Greek”.

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 10 (Art. 10 Prop. A) [commentary]
    was accepted as amended (Janchen, in the Avis préalable),
    expanding to  “interspecific hybrids and chimaeras excepted,”.

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 15 (Art. 16 Prop. B) [commentary]
    was amended (Sprague), to retain the phrase  “not for the purpose
    of describing the characters or the history of the group”  and
    was referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 16 & 19 (Art. 15 Prop. B)
    [commentary] was amended (Sprague), the last sentence being
    withdrawn, and was then referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 21 (Art. 19 Prop. C) [commentary] it
    was proposed (Hamshaw Thomas) and accepted to fix 1920 as the
    starting-point for the nomenclature of all fossil plants. The
    starting-points of the other groups to remain unchanged (pending
    further study).

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 22 (Art. 20 Prop. B) [commentary] the
    last three paragraphs were referred to the Editorial Committee. The
    principle of a list of Nomina familiarum conservanda was accepted.

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 58 (Art. 48bis (new)) [commentary]
    was accepted as amended (in the Avis préalable), the new Article
    also to include the elements which had been excluded from Art. 48
    Prop. B (see above). Also, deleting the word  “original”. [   ] [   ]

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 62 (Art. 49 Prop. A) [commentary]
    was accepted as amended (the Rapporteur in the Avis préalable),
    deleting the final Note.

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 74 (Rec. XXX Prop. A) and Rec.
    XXXI (Rec. XXXI Prop. A): these proposals to delete Rec. XXX
    and XXXI were referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 76 (Art. 57ter (new)) [commentary]
    was accepted as amended as suggested by the Rapporteur (in the
    Recueil synoptique), with “I.” becoming:  “A Greek or Latin
    word adopted as a generic name retains the gender assigned to it
    by its author.”

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 77 (Art. 58bis (new)) [commentary]
    was accepted and referred to the Editorial Committee, which
    would consider deleting the word  “additional” (Barnhart).

•   British Sub-committee, Art. 78 (Art. 58 Prop. B) [commentary]
    was accepted as amended, firstly by deletion of the first sentence
    (Ramsbottom, Rapporteur), and secondly by deletion of the word 
    “final”  (Barnhart).

•   British Sub-committee, Rec. XVIIIbis (Rec. XVIIIbis Prop. A)
    was accepted, with the addition of the last sentence of Anonymous
    Italian Art. 39bis (Art. 39bis (new)).

•   Rehder, Rec. XXVqua. (Rec. XXVqua. (new)) [explanation] was
    accepted and referred to the Editorial Committee which would
    deal with a point raised (Holmberg), about the difference between
    in and apud.

•   Rehder, Art. 48 (Art. 48 Prop. B) [explanation] was accepted as
    amended (Sprague, in the Avis préalable), to limit it to
    subdivisions of genera.   [   ]   [   ]

 
Motions from the floor (plus miscellaneous requests)

•   It was moved (Barnhart) and accepted to delete  “neither be
    arbitrary nor imposed by authority”  from Art. 3.

•   A proposal (Jaczewski, in the Avis préalable) to add to Art. 11
    “and races or biological forms”  was referred to the Editorial
    Committee.

•   It was moved (Sprague) and accepted to have the Editorial
    Committee consider adopting the term  “category” (for what is
    now “rank”).

•   The suggestion by the Rapporteur (in the Recueil synoptique) to
    add that these names in Rec. II have the plural form was accepted
    by the Section.

•   The suggestion (Sprague in the Avis préalable) was accepted to
    join Art. 21 and 22 together.

•   The suggestion (Janchen in the Avis préalable) was accepted to
    add Papilionaceae to Art. 22 as an exception.

•   A proposal (Barnhart) was accepted to alter Art. 22 to allow use of
    names in -aceae as alternatives (see also Amer. J. Bot. 36: 19-19.
    1949).

•   Various suggestions on Rec. XIII (in the Avis préalable) were
    referred to the Editorial Committee (for example, that of Holmberg
    to include Greek words on -y).

•   Attention was drawn (Sprague in the Avis préalable) to the
    connection between Rec. XIV f and the proposed Art. 51bis, and
    this was referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   It was proposed (Sprague) and accepted to raise the second part of
    Rec. XV to a Rule, applying to all epithets.   [   ]   [   ]

•   It was proposed (Rehder) to add to Art. 28  “It is permissible to
    reduce more complicated names to ternary combinations.”
    (accompanied by an Example): this was referred to the Editorial
    Committee.

•   A suggestion (Dandy), to delete from Art. 31  “by absence of an
    ordinal number and”  was referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   The suggestion by the Rapporteur (in the Recueil synoptique) to
    adjust Art. 39 editorially was accepted.

•   Rec. XX was referred to the Editorial Committee, to adjust it to
    accord with changes in the Rules elsewhere.

•   Art. 40 and 41 were referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   Upon request (Ramsbottom), Art. 43 was referred to the Editorial
    Committee, to take account of the adoption of the type method: the
    original author must be cited in parentheses.

•   A suggestion (Dixon) was referred to the Editorial Committee to
    add:  “When a new name is derived from a Greek word containing
    the spiritus asper, this should be transcribed as the letter h.”

•   A request on behalf of the International Horticultural Congress
    (Rendle) to add an Appendix with rules for cultivated plants was
    accepted.

•   A request (Davidson) to replace Phanerogamae throughout the
    Rules by Spermatophyta was referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   A request (Epling) to indicate the type genera of the nine family
    names not based on a generic name was referred to the new
    Executive Committee.

•   A desire (Gundersen) to replace Mono-/Dicotyledoneae throughout
    the Rules by Mono-/Dicotyledones was expressed. Also to have a
    published list of accepted generic names.

•   A request (Sprague, on behalf of bryologists) was accepted to
    publish a new supplement of the Index Bryologicus giving details
    of type specimens.

2015 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel
              all rights reserved