CONVERSION TABLE, VI IBC (1935)

Conversion table for proposals submitted to the VI IBC, the 1935,
Amsterdam Congress to amend the International Rules of Botanical
Nomenclature, ed. 3 (Cambridge Rules). Congress action is based
on the Proceedings.

Links go to the relevant page at either a website (BHL) or of a PDF,
a local copy (copyright where applicable: Kew Gardens).

See also:

   •  Congress action
   •  list of proposals
 

The Synopsis is in two parts; the Red Book offers a synoptic view
of the proposals and the Gray Book provides the recommendations
of ten eminent botanists who had been sent the Red Book and had
responded with a vote in favour or against.  Offered separately are
the votes and comments by Barnhart, which came in late. In
addition, the Gray Book also has some proposals that came in late.

The Section decided that all proposals that had received four-fifths
or more no-votes in the Gray Book were automatically rejected.

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”.  The abbreviations  “PB”  and  “Myc”
in the Gray Book indicate that the number of votes received was
inadequate to formulate a recommendation on a proposal pertaining
to palaeobotanical nomenclature or mycology, respectively (no
action was taken by the Section on these proposals, either).  An
asterisk (*) indicates that the Gray Book has an additional comment
(or comments), not just a vote.

 
Committees

 •  A Special Committee to report on the effects of the adoption of
    Art. A 19 (dealing with the proposed suppression of certain works)
    was appointed.
 •  A Special Committee for Nomenclature of Economic Plants was
    appointed to draw up a list of names of economic plants according
    to the International Rules; this list to remain in use for a period of
    ten years.
 •  The appointment of a Committee to draw up an Appendix on
    Regulations for determining types (the App. I proposed at
    Cambridge) was referred to the Executive Committee.

 
Miscellaneous

 •  It was proposed (Rendle) and accepted that only matters left
    over from the present Congress, or new propositions, should be
    allowed to be proposed at the next Congress.

 •  It was moved (Lanjouw) that a proposal to the Cambridge
    Congress, Art. 37ter (Rec. Syn. p. 41) ([   ]), be considered; this
    was accepted as amended (Robyns), to read:

     “A name of a taxonomic group is not validly published unless it
       is definitely accepted by the author who publishes it.  A name
       proposed provisionally (nomen provisorium) in anticipation of
       the eventual acceptance of the group, or of a particular
       circumscription, position or rank of a given group, or merely
       mentioned incidentally is not validly published.”

    The example was brought forward (Robyns) of Cymbopogon
    Bequaerti and Andropogon Bequaerti and discussed; such
    alternative names were to be allowed.

 •  The following four resolutions proposed by the Algologists were
    adopted:

    1. In describing new species of Algae, special importance should
        be attached to the provision of illustrations and to maintenance
        of cultures of the species concerned.
    2. The desirability of adopting further monographs as the starting
        points of particular groups of Algae, as in the Oedogoniaceae,
        should be investigated.
    3. A list of nomina dubia of species, genera and families should
        be prepared, and also lists of nomina conservanda and
        rejicienda of genera and families.
    4. The desirability of retaining the Latin language for diagnoses
        of new Algae should be investigated.

 •  As to the proposals on fossils, the Section of Palaeobotany met on
    September 3rd, and decided unanimously that additions should be
    made to the rules and recommendations for the following objects:

    1. To recognize as taxonomic groups, organ genera and artificial
        or form genera.
    2. To ensure that the names originally given to detached organs or
        parts of plants shall only be used in their original significance
        and shall not be employed in the designation of different organs,
        or of the plant as a whole.
    3. To provide for the naming of an entire plant when it has been
        possible to reconstruct it by the association of its different
        organs.
    4. To define how the names of the artificial genera are to be used.
    5. To set up a permanent committee to consider the interpretation
        of the rules; to adjudicate in cases of dispute or difficulty; to
        draw up lists of Nomina generica conservanda; and to make
        such further recommendations as may prove necessary,
        including rules for the determination of types.

    Wording and arrangement to be left to the Secretary, Hamshaw
    Thomas, the whole to be printed as an appendix.

 •  As to the proposals on mycology, it was stated (Ramsbottom) on
    behalf of the Committee for Fungi that separate subcommittees
    would be appointed to investigate the effects of the various
    proposals (Art. 20 Prop. A, B, C, E, and F,  Art. 57 Prop. A).

 •  An Editorial Committee for a Supplement of the International
    Rules of Botanical Nomenclature was appointed (three persons,
    one for each language) instead of a full Editorial Committee.

 
Notes

•   Adams, Art. 21 (Art. 21 Prop. A), Australian Botanists, obs.
    (Art. 21bis Note), and Troup, Art. 21B (Art. 21bis Prop.), also
    Burtt Davy, “Memorandum on the nomenclature of forest trees”:
    the nomina specifica conservanda were rejected.  Instead a
    proposal (Ramsbottom) was accepted to have a Committee to
    draw up a list of economically important species; this list to be
    protected for ten years.

•   Becherer, Art. 34 (Art. 34 Prop. A): the Bureau recommended that
    this proposal be rejected but that the example be added to Art. 34,
    the term  “subhybrida”  being replaced by  “forma”  (Harms): this
    was adopted.

•   Wilmott, Brit. Bot. 8 (Art. 23 Prop. C) was accepted with the
    following wording:

     “Names of families are taken from the name of one of their
       genera, or from a synonym, and end in -aceae.”

•   Wilmott, Brit. Bot. 11 (Art. 31 Prop. A) was accepted with the
    following amended wording :

     “Example of asexual hybrids: +Solanum tubingense (Solanum
       Lycopersicum + nigrum).”

•   Sprague, Brit. Bot. 17bis (Art. 55 Prop. A) was accepted as
    amended (Sprague), to read:

     “When, on transference to another genus or species, the epithet
       of a subdivision of a species has been applied erroneously in
       its new position to a different subdivision of the same rank,
       the new combination must be retained for the plant on which
       the former combination was based, and must be attributed to
       the author who first published it.”

•   Sprague, Brit. Bot. 21 (Art. 60 Prop. B) was accepted as amended
    (Sprague) to replace the words  “he (or she)”  by  “the author”, 
    and the phrase  “Rafinesque ought to have adopted the name
    Pontederia L.”  by  “the name Pontederia L. ought to have been
    adopted.”

•   Wilmott, Brit. Bot. 23 (Art. 61 Prop. A) was accepted as amended
    (Rehder), to read:

     “When an author simultaneously publishes the same new name
       for more than one group, the first author who adopts one of
       them, or substitutes another name for one of them, must be
       followed.”

•   Gilmour,  Brit. Bot. 24 (Art. 62 Prop. A) withdrawn, the Example
    referred to the Committee involved.

•   Wilmott, Brit. Bot. 27 (Rec. XXXVII Prop. A) was accepted as
    amended by the deletion of the words  “(i.e. secundum)” in the
    example of Rec. XXXVII.

•   Verdoorn, Brit. Bot. 29 (Art. 70 Prop. E): it was suggested
    ( Sprague) that in view of the small number of such names
    (masculine generic names based on a personal name) it would be
    better to deal with these by conservation of the desired spelling,
    rather than by a special rule.  It was agreed to reject the proposal
    and to refer the five generic names concerned (Herberta,
    Marchesinia, Nardia, Pallavicinia, and Riccardia) for
    conservation.

•   Green,  Brit. Bot. 32 (Art. 72 Prop. C) was accepted as amended
    (Sprague), with Art. 72 to become a Recommendation.

•   Ramsbottom, Brit. Bot. 33 (Art. 73 Prop.): provisions 1 and 2
    were withdrawn; the remainder was then referred to the Executive
    and Editorial Committees.  In addition, the following motion
    (Ramsbottom) was accepted:

     “That the President and Secretary of the Executive Committee
       of Nomenclature be ex officio members of all nomenclature
       Committees appointed by the Section.”

•   Lanjouw & Sprague, Brit. Bot. 35 (App. II Prop.) was accepted,
    leaving it to the Committee for Phanerogamae and Pteridophyta
    to conserve any additional names that might be required.

•   Sprague & Green, Brit. Bot. 41 (App. VI Prop.) it was proposed
    (Linder) and accepted that the Executive Committee should get
    into touch with Botanical Institutions in the various countries and
    ask them to give their ideas concerning representative institutions
    to be placed on the list.

•   Hochreutiner, Art. 35 (Art. 35 Prop. A) was accepted as amended
    (the Bureau); the change to Art. 35 to read:  “The fancy epithet will
    be preceded by the letter “c.”.”

•   A proposal from the floor (Hochreutiner) was accepted to add to
    Art. 36:

     “Where separates from periodicals or other works placed on sale
       are issued in advance, the date on the separate is accepted as the
       date of effective publication.”

•   Rehder, Sect. 7 (Sect. 7 Prop. A) was accepted as amended
    (Rehder):  “Citation of authors’ names and of literature for
    purposes of precision.”

•   Rehder, Art. 47 (Art. 47 Prop. A) was accepted as amended (the
    (Bureau):

     “An alteration of the diagnostic characters or of the
       circumscription of a group without exclusion of the type ... ”.

•   Rehder, Rec. XXXIIter (Rec. XXXIIter Prop. A) was amended
    (Hitchcock, Linder, Sprague) to read:

     “Misapplications of names should not be included in synonymy.
       Misapplied names may be included in notes appended to the
       synonymy but distinct from it, or to the description where there
       is no synonymy.”

    this was referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   Rehder, Rec. XXXIIquater (Rec. XXXIIquater Prop.) was
    accepted as amended (Harms), to omit the first example, the text
    to be abbreviated:

     “In citation of literature ‘in’ should be inserted after the name of
       the author if the citation refers to a periodical or other serial
       publication, or if it is a work by another author.”

•   Rehder,  Rec. XXXIIquinquies (Rec. XXXIIquinquies Prop.)
    was accepted as amended (the Bureau), to read:

     “If a name cited in synonymy applies only in part to the group
       under which it is cited, it should be made clear whether the
       synonym cited includes the type, and in that case the words pro
       parte typica, (p. p. typ.) should be appended; in more exact
       citations the parts excluded or those belonging to the group in
       question should be cited, or the name of the author who changed
       the circumscription of the group should be added, preceded by
       ‘emend.’.”

    In the examples delete  “p.p.”  in lines 1 and 6; substitute the word 
    “under”  for  “as synon.”  in line 4/5.

•   Rehder, Rec. XXXIIsepties (Rec. XXXIIsepties Prop.) was
    accepted as amended, by the deletion of the words  “without
    grammatical or orthographic corrections or changes in the
    indication of rank of subdivisions of genera or of species,”
    and the addition of  “A.”  before  “Gray”  in lines 7 and 9.

•   Rehder, Art. 50 (Art. 50 Prop. A) was accepted as amended, with
    the following wording:  “since the type of Myosotis L. remains
    since in the genus.”

2015 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel
              all rights reserved