CONVERSION TABLE, VII IBC (1950)

Conversion table for proposals-to-amend-the-Code at the VII IBC,
the 1950, Stockholm Congress.  Congress action is based on the
Proceedings (in Regnum Veg. 1, 1953, by permission of the IAPT).
This was the first Congress at which a preliminary mail vote was
included, an innovation made by the Rapporteur, on his own
responsibility.

Links go to the relevant page at either a website (BHL, Cyberliber)
or of a PDF, a local copy (copyright varies: the IAPT, Kew Gardens,
etc).  In the case of PDF’s made by JSTOR a link may be off by one
page (browser-dependent; some browsers do not count the page
added by JSTOR).

See also:

   •  Congress action
   •  list of proposals
 

This overview is not as easily accessible as those for later Congresses.
Firstly, numbering may be confusing: what was numbered at this time
are not individual proposals, but rather submissions to the Congress
(usually these are sets of proposals).  Some proposals are associated
with more than one submission.  This may have several reasons.  A few
submissions were just numbered twice.  Other submissions had
gathered up proposals already made elsewhere.  A case in point is the
1950–62, Brittonia submission which is a miniature synopsis, a
collection of the actual changes proposed, with votes and comments
by American taxonomists, while the complete proposals (giving the
background and arguments) may be found in another submission.
In the case of Furtado, there is often an original proposal (in 1940–09,
of 1939) and a later addition (in 1950–83, of 1949); this may be an
emendation or even a complete replacement of the earlier proposal
(in the case of a replacement the earlier proposal was not included in
the Synopsis). 
     Anyway, although a proposal may be included two (or three) times
in this table, any decision on it is included only once here.

Proposals were supposed to be submitted in one hundred physical
copies, but in practice had one the following forms:
• published (and presumably submitted as a reprint),
• privately printed,
• mimeographed (‘stencilled’),
• typed (‘type-script’, presumably only a single copy);
it may also have had more than one of these forms.

For some proposals all that is known is what has been included in the
Synopsis.  Of those proposals that were published, many are still in
copyright (fortunately, a comforting number of these have been
included in BHL and Cyberliber, and the Board of Trustees of Kew
Gardens kindly gave permission to use some publications).

Ideally, there would be a close correspondence between
• what the proposer(s) intended to be a proposal,
• what is included in the List of proposals,
• what is treated as a proposal in the Synopsis, and
• what is included in the preliminary mail vote. 
but in this case there are significant discrepancies between these
(there are a few misnumberings, as well).  This table focuses on
what is treated as a proposal in the Synopsis, but also includes
every item in the List of proposals.

Prior to the Stockholm Congress, there was a pre-conference at
Utrecht in 1948, attended by an international company of nineteen
botanists.  This pre-conference considered the proposals then
available, mainly the following submissions:
• 1940–01 by Wheeler,
• 1940–06 by Rehder,
• 1940–09 by Furtado,
• 1940–10 by Handel-Mazzetti,
• 1940–12 by Fosberg,
• 1940–13 by Bolle,
• 1940–14 by British Botanists,
• 1950–62 by American Taxonomists (a preliminary version).
     As some of the early proposals by Furtado (in 1940–09) were
emended or completely replaced by himself in his second set of
proposals (1950–83), and in the case of a replacement, the original
proposal was not included in the Synopsis, the advice by the Utrecht
conference does not necessarily apply on a one-to-one basis (or at all)
to the proposals in the Synopsis.
     In the course of its deliberations, the Utrecht conference came up
with some additional proposals; these were included in the Synopsis,
and can also be found in the minutes of the Utrecht conference,
published in Chronica botanica.
     Note that the minutes of the Utrecht conference also include some
relevant material not found elsewhere, including some proposals that
had been supposed to go into the Synopsis (some of which were even
effected).

The American taxonomists did something similar for the American
proposals, with a total of fifty-five scientists voting.
     Their final results were published in Brittonia (1950–62).  Prior to
that, a delegation had attended the Utrecht conference, bringing a
preliminary version of their work.
     Not all American proposals are included in the Synopsis: if it was
voted down by the joint American taxonomists, that was usually the
end of it; it was still included in the Brittonia-paper but anonymized
and in a different font-size. Since it had been voted down already
once, it was (usually) not included in the Synopsis (this does not apply
to a proposal that had already been published independently; also,
some proposals were included anyway).

 
Abbreviations used
Alston & al. = Alston, Ballard & Holttum
Am. c. myc. = American committees on mycological nomenclature
Bisby & Stev. = Bisby & Stevenson
c.nom., ASPT = committee on nomenclature,
                      American Society of Plant Taxonomists
Horn & Olsen = Horn Af Rantzien & Olsen
Melville & Milne-Redh. = Melville & Milne-Redhead
Rehder & al. = Rehder, Palmer & Croizat
Sm. & Wehm. = A.H. Smith & Wehmeyer
Wehm. & Stev. = Wehmeyer & Stevenson

 
Procedure

•  Voting was by simple majority, although the majority had to be
    significant.
•  It was proposed (Rogers) and accepted that the Section would deal
    mostly with proposals that received less than 3/4 and more than 1/4
    of the preliminary vote.  That is, any proposal that had received more
    than 75% yes-votes in the preliminary mail vote was accepted
    without further vote and any proposal that had received more than
    75% no-votes was rejected without further vote.  This applied from
    Art. 10 Prop. 6 onwards.
•  Later it was proposed (Camp) and agreed to lower this from 3/4 to
    2/3 of the preliminary mail vote. This applied to the proposals treated
    after Art. 21 Prop. 9.
    - “no (mail vote)” : rejected because of the mail vote (2/3 no-votes)
    - “no [mail vote]” : rejected, with more than 75% no-votes in the
                                    mail vote
    - “no ([mail vote])” : rejected because of the mail vote (2/3 or 3/4
                                    no-votes), with more than 75% no-votes in the
                                    mail vote
•   A proposal (Gilmour) was accepted that no speaker be allowed
    more than two minutes, and that no speaker be allowed to speak on
    the same proposal more than once without special permission from
    the Chair.

 
Committees established

 •  Committee to deal with Urgent Nomenclatural Needs, to “consider
    all proposals for reconciling conflicting views on questions of
    nomenclature held by very large sections of botanists and plant
    users, and to recommend possible solutions with the least delay”.
       [Not to be confused with the Standing Committee for Urgent
        Taxonomic Needs with a quite different mandate, and not
        established by the Nomenclature Section]

 •  A proposal to have a Committee on nomina specifica rejicienda
    was rejected.
 

Cultivated plants

The special committee for names of cultivated plants instituted by
the Utrecht conference had been asked to deal with the proposals
on § 6 and § 7 (Art. 31 to Art. 35).  Their recommendations were
accepted (see below), but the provision on apomicts was to be a
Recommendation instead of a Rule, and the whole was to be a
separate Appendix.  They also recommended to add an Art. 44quater.

•   1950–72 (§ 6 Prop. 1) by Camp was accepted as amended by
    the committee:

       “§ 6. Names of hybrids and some other special categories”.

•   1950–72 (Art. 31 Prop. 7) by Camp was accepted with the
    following modifications:

     - “Hybrids or putative hybrids between two species of ...” etc.
     - (3rd paragraph, line 2): “is distinguished from the latter by the
       sign × before the binary (“specific”) epithet.”
     - Examples: (consult Mr Stearn).
     - Note l: (line 2) change “will” to “may”.
     - An additional proposal (Camp) was accepted to insert in Art. 31:

        “When Latin “specific” names for hybrids are used, all offspring
          of crossing between individuals of the same parent species
          receive the same specific name.”

•   1950–72 (Art. 31bis (new)) by Camp was accepted as amended:

    - “Hybrids or putative hybrids between infraspecific taxa of the
         same species may be designated by a formula and, wherever it
         seems useful or necessary, by a name of the same taxonomic
         rank as the parents or, if these are of different rank, that of the
         higher ranking parent. In the formula the order of the epithets
         and the use of [...].”
    - Examples: (to be supplied by Mr Stearn).
    - New Note, adapted from 1950–48 (Art. 32 Prop. 5, Hylander):
        - adopt the lst paragraph
        - Examples: (to be corrected by Mr Stearn)
        - delete Hylander’s “Note”

•   1950–72 (Art. 32 Prop. 6) by Camp was accepted with the
    addition of

    - “Note 1. “Hybrid subgenera” and “hybrid sections” may be
        named in the same way.”
    - “Examples: Iris subg. × Regeliocyclus, including the hybrids
        between species belonging to subg. Regelia and to subg.
        Oncocyclus, respectively.” (Have Mr. Stearn check example.)
    - “Note 2. The binary (“specific”) epithet of an intergeneric
        hybrid must not be placed under the name of either of the
        parent genera.”
    - (Mr Stearn can furnish examples where this unfortunate
       practice has been used – if thought advisable to include in text.)

•   1950–72 (Art. 33 Prop. 4) by Camp was accepted as amended:
    - first line, change  “Terniary”  to  “Ternary”,
    - third line, change  “polygeneric”  to  “multigeneric”,
    - Art. 33bis Prop. to be considered in Appendix VII,
    - Rec. XX to be deleted.

•   1950–72 (Art. 34 Prop. 5) by Camp was accepted as amended:
    - accept first paragraph (delete Example and Note)
    - add a second paragraph, modified from Art. 34 Prop. 4:

       “These forms are recognized as nothomorphs; when
         desirable they may be designated by an epithet
         preceded by the binary name of the group and the term
         nothomorph (nothomorpha, abbreviated as nm.), in the
         same way as subdivisions of species are classed under
         the binary name of the species.”

    - Example: Mentha × niliaca nm. Lamarckii. (Mr Stearn
       probably could furnish a better example.)

•   1950–48 (Art. 34bis (new)) by Hylander,
    1950–72 (Art. 34ter (new)) by Camp,
    1950–72 (Art. 34quater (new)) by Camp, and
    1950–72 (Art. 34quinquies (new)) by Camp
    were rejected by the committee, in favour of a new proposal,
    which was accepted by the Section, there to be a new
    Recommendation (to follow Art. 34.):

    - “Taxa which are apomicts may, if so desired, be designated
        in the following manner:”
    - “1) If they are considered as of specific rank, by the
            intercalation of the abbreviation “ap.” between the
            generic name and the epithet.”
    - “2) If they are considered as of infraspecific rank, by the
            intercalation of the abbreviation “ap.” between the
            category term and the infraspecific epithet.”
    - “In the case of an infraspecific category of a species which is
        wholly apomictic, the abbreviation “ap.” is placed solely
        between the generic name and the specific epithet.”
    - Examples: (to be supplied by Mr Stearn).
    - “Taxa which are clones may, if so desired, be designated in
        the same way as for apomicts, except that the abbreviation
        “cl.” or the symbol CL is used in place of “ap.”.”
    - Examples: [to be supplied] Hemerocallis fulva cl. Europa.

•   (1950–72) 1950–62 (§ 7 Prop. 1) by Camp was accepted as
    amended (by the committee) to read:  “§ 7. Names of plants in
    cultivation”.

•   1950–72 (Art. 35 Prop. 9) by Camp was accepted as amended,
    a new composite replacement for Art. 35:

    - “Plants brought into cultivation from the wild and which differ
        in no fundamental way from the parent stocks bear the same
        names as are applied to the same species and subdivisions of
        species in nature.”
    - “Plants arising in cultivation through hybridization, mutation,
        or other processes which tend to establish recognizable
        differences from the parent stocks receive epithets preferably
        in common language (“fancy” epithets) markedly different
        from the Latin epithets of species or varieties.”
    - “Detailed regulations for the nomenclature of plants in
        cultivation appear in Appendix VII.”

•   Art. 44quater was proposed by the committee as a replacement
    for the proposed Art. 42bis and 42ter: it was accepted by the
    Section:

    - “For purposes of valid publication, names in Latin form given
        to hybrids are subject to the same rules as those of non-hybrid
        taxa of the corresponding rank.”
    - “Note: the parentage, so far as known, should be indicated.”
 

Art. 62, 63, and 64

Art. 62, 63, and 64 were discussed together.
•   A proposal (Smith, amended Rogers, Roth, Sprague) to delete
    Art. 63 and Rec. XXXVII was accepted.
•   1950–29 (Art. 62 Prop. 2) by Mansfeld & Rothmaler was accepted
    as amended to eliminate  “owing to segregation” (Sprague) and to
    eliminate the list of nomina ambigua (Lanjouw?).
       There was a feeling (Boivin, Dandy) that the example of Alsine
    should not be retained.  The Editorial Committee was asked
    (Polunin) to replace the word  “permanent”  by  “persistent”.
•   As to Art. 64, it was proposed (Lanjouw, Boivin) and accepted to
    also delete the list of nomina confusa.  Also, the Section accepted
    the composite proposal of the Committee for Fungi, based on
    Prop. 2, 4 and 8 [and the proposal by Rogers], Art. 64 to read:

    -  “A name of a taxonomic group must be rejected if the
         characters of that group were derived from two or more
         entirely discordant elements, unless it is possible to select one
         of these elements as a satisfactory type.”
    -  “For nomenclatural purposes names given to lichens shall be
         considered as applying to their fungal components, but shall be
         subject to the provisions of Art. 20 (d).”

Palaeobotanical Nomenclature

The report of the Committee on Palaeobotanical Nomenclature was
accepted, including the new Appendix, but the matter of the starting
point was deferred until a later Congress.

Typification

The committee on typification reported; the proposals on Art. 18 up
to, and including, Rec. VII had been referred to it.  It presented
replacement proposals that were accepted.  [However, see also the
new Art. 68]
       Also, a draft Guide for Determination of Types (the proposed
App. I) was presented (based on 1950–70 by Fosberg); this was
accepted as well.

Notes

•   1940–01 (Art. 36 Prop. 1) by Wheeler was accepted, with the
    suggestion (Sprague) that  “Up to and including” might be clearer
    than  “Through”.

•   1940–01 (Art. 56 Prop. 1) by Wheeler (the Utrecht conference
    advising in favour of the first sentence) was accepted as a separate
    Article and referred to the Editorial Committee  [in fact, this had
    already been accepted at Amsterdam].

•   1940–01 (Art. 60 Prop. 1) by Wheeler was referred to the Editorial
    Committee.  Also, it was pointed out that the example of
    Tetragonolobus Scandalida Scop. should be deleted.

•   The proposals on Art. 48 were dealt with together, except Prop. 4,
    which was rejected.  These proposals all focussed on the second
    part of Art. 48, and the Section agreed to replace this by a
    Recommendation as suggested by the Rapporteur:

       “When a name with a description or reference to a description
         by one author is published in a work by another author, it is
         recommended to use the word in to connect the names of the
         two authors.”

•   1940–14 (Art. 49bis (new)) by Green was accepted, the final word
    “brackets” to be changed to “parentheses”.

•   1940–14 (Art. 13 Prop. 1) by Sprague: an amendment (Rogers)
    was moved to add:

       “An exception is made for names of subgenera in Fries’s
         Systema Mycologicum, which are treated as validly published
         although he termed them “tribes” (tribus).”

    The proposal and the amendment were referred to the Committee
    for Fungi which strongly recommended the amendment.  A
    rewording for the first sentence had been suggested by the Utrecht
    conference (Hylander):

       “Names given to taxa placed in categories denoted by misplaced
         terms are treated as not validly published”.

•   1940–14 (Art. 27 Prop. 4) by Sprague, the Utrecht conference had
    suggested to add  “(and similar token words)”;  it was pointed out
    (Donk, Boivin) that the word  “illegitimate”  here should be
    replaced by  “not validly published”.  Pending a rephrasing, the
    proposal was accepted.

•   1940–14 (Rec. XXX Prop. 1) by Sprague was accepted.  A
    suggestion (Mattfeld) to replace:  “(Br. for Brown)” by  “(R. Br.
    for Robert Brown; A. Br. for Alexander Braun)”  was referred
    to the Editorial Committee.

•   1950–05 (Art. 10 Prop. 1) by Lam (modified by the Utrecht
    conference, which treated Art. 10 Prop. 1, Art. 11 Prop. 1 and
    Art. 12 Prop. 1 as a single proposal, and recommended by that
    conference, the Committee for Fungi having no objection to it)
    was accepted as amended by the suggestion of the Rapporteur:

       “For nomenclatural purposes, the species is regarded as the
         central taxon”.

•   1950–05 (Art. 65 Prop. 1) by van Dijk (the Utrecht conference
    advising in favour, and the preliminary mail vote returning more
    than 2/3 no-votes): it was proposed (Dandy) and accepted to
    retain Art. 65 unchanged, pending study before and at the next
    Congress.

•   1950–05 (Rec. XLIII Prop. 1) by van Dijk was initially accepted.
    However, at the close of the Section, this decision was reversed
    in favour of Rec. XLIII Prop. 6 (which initially had been
    automatically rejected, with more than 75% no-votes in the mail
    vote).

•   1950–05 (Art. 11 Prop. 1) by Lam and 1950–48 (Art. 11 Prop. 2)
    by Hylander (having received more than 75% no-votes): these two
    proposals were referred to the Committee for Fungi, which
    recommended that  “forma biologica”  and succeeding words be
    deleted from Prop. 1 and that the rest of Prop. 1 be adopted.
    Prop 2 to be rejected.

•   1950–05 [X] (Art. 58bis (new)) by Lam & Lanjouw (the
    Utrecht conference advising to accept the first two paragraphs)
    was dealt with in parts: the first paragraph was accepted, the rest
    not.  The remnant of the recommendation was referred to the
    Editorial Committee.

•   1950–05 (Art. 28bis (new)) by Lanjouw and (1940–11) 1950–62
    [‘Art. 30bis’] (Art. 28bis Prop. 1) by Gleason (which had
    received more than 75% no-votes); the Utrecht conference had
    recommended a new wording for the new Article proposed as a
    replacement for Rec. XVIII.  The Section agreed to delete
    Rec. XVIII and referred the whole matter to the Editorial
    Committee, to be considered together with
    - (1940–11) 1950–62 by Gleason (Art. 28 Prop. 3),
    - 1950–46 by les botanistes Belges (Art. 28 Prop. 7),
    - 1950–39 by Boivin (Art. 30bis (new)), and
    - 1950–39 by Boivin (Rec. XXXV Prop. 3).

•   The minutes of the Utrecht conference have a proposal (XI in
    1950–05) by van Steenis that the heading of Section 12 should
    read  “Rejection of names and epithets”,  this had been accepted
    by the Utrecht conference.

•   1950–05 [XIII] (Art. 20 Prop. 3) by van der Wijk was accepted
    as amended, to include a definite date (Ramsbottom), namely
    1 May for the Species Plantarum (Rollins) and either 1 Jan. or
    31 Dec. (at the discretion of the Editorial Committee) for all
    other works (Lanjouw/Ross).

•   1950–05 [IX] (Art. 36bis (new)) by de Wit (the Utrecht
    conference finding it mostly superfluous) was accepted as
    amended (de Wit), only the first two paragraphs.

•   1950–11 (Rec. X Prop. 1) by the Japanese botanists and
    1950–39 (Rec. X Prop. 2) by Groves & Boivin: these two proposed
    rephrasings of the first sentence were referred to the Editorial
    Committee, with a suggested rephrasing (Sprague):  “Botanists
    who are forming generic names should comply with the following
    Recommendations”.

•   1950–19 (Art. 57 Prop. 2) by Shaw,
    (1950–55) 1950–20 (Art. 57 Prop. 1) by Bisby & Stevenson, and
    1950–48 (Art. 57 Prop. 3) by Hylander: these three proposals were
    referred to the Committee for Fungi, which voted to recommend
    the adoption of the following text in place of the present Art. 57:

    - “In Ascomycetes and Basidiomycetes with two or more states in
         the life cycle (except when they are lichen fungi), but not in
         Phycomycetes, the first valid name or epithet applied to the
         perfect state takes precedence.  The perfect state is that which
         bears asci in the Ascomycetes, which consists of the spores giving
         rise to basidia in the Uredinales and of the chlamydospores in the
         Ustilaginales, or which bears basidia in the remaining
         Basidiomycetes.  The type specimen of a state must bear that state.
         However, the provisions of this article shall not be construed as
         preventing the use of names of imperfect states in works referring
         to such states.”
    - “The author who first describes a perfect state may use the specific
         epithet of the corresponding imperfect state, but his binomial for
         the perfect state is to be attributed to him alone, and is not to be
         regarded as a transfer.”
    - “When not already available, binomials for imperfect states may be
         proposed at the time of publication of a perfect state or later, using
         either the specific epithet of the perfect state or any other epithet
         available”.

•   1950–20 (Art. 20 Prop. 5) by Dodge and
    1950–20 (Art. 20 Prop. 6) by Diehl were referred to the Committee
    for Fungi which urged to replace Art. 20 (f) by:

       “(f) Fungi caeteri, 1821 (FRIES, Systema mycologicum Vol. I).
         Vol. I of the Systema is treated as having appeared Jan. 1, 1821,
         and the Elenchus fungorum 1828 is considered to be a part of
         the Systema. Names of Fungi caeteri published in other works
         between the dates of the first and last parts of the Systema which
         are synonyms or homonyms of names of any of the Fungi caeteri
         included in the Systema do not affect the nomenclatorial status of
         names used by FRIES in this work.”

•   (1950–52) 1950–20 (Art. 36 Prop. 8) by Wehmeyer & Stevenson
    was rejected (more than 75% no-votes) but in later discussion an
    element was extracted, which was accepted:  “or the issue of
    microfilm made from manuscripts”.

•   1950–29 (Art. 10 Prop. 3) by Mansfeld & Rothmaler: proposals
    to replace  “divisio”  by  “phylum” (Papenfuss) or to replace 
    “divisio”  by  “divisio or phylum” (Lanjouw) were rejected, as well.

•   1950–36 (Rec. XXqua. Prop.) by Chatterjee was accepted as
    amended (Hylander), the first sentence only.

•   1950–38 (Art. 21 Prop. 6) by A.C. Smith was accepted as amended
    (Lanjouw) to replace  “families and genera”  by  “genera and taxa of
    a higher rank”.

•   1950–39 (Rec. XXI Prop. 1) by Boivin was accepted as amended,
    to read  “and if possible where it is preserved.”

•   1950–39 (Rec. XXXIIquinquies Prop. 1) by Boivin and
    1950–62 (Rec. XXXIIquinquies Prop. 2) by Fosberg (the mail vote
    resulting in more than 2/3 no-votes): the Section accepted the
    suggestion of the Rapporteur to just delete Rec. XXXII quinquies.

•   The submission 1950–45 by Rogers has two proposals on Art. 64,
    of which the second was:

       “Names given to Lichenes are considered to apply to the fungal
         component only.”

    The Utrecht conference had referred this proposal to the
    Committees for Fungi and for Lichens, while the American
    taxonomists advised against it. Somehow, it was not included in
    the Synopsis, but it does appear to have contributed towards the
    composite proposal of the Committee for Fungi (presented by
    Rogers himself), that was accepted by Section.

•   1950–48 (Art. 10 Prop. 5) by Hylander: since in the algae
    characters are based on the colony (Patrick), a proposal (Sprague)
    to delete the word  “individual”  was accepted.

•   1950–48 (Art. 16 Prop. 4) by Hylander (which had received
    more than 75% no-votes), was withdrawn, but the following
    sentences were referred (Fosberg) to the Editorial Committee:

       “An epithet is not considered illegitimate only because it was
         originally published under an illegitimate generic name, but
         must be taken into consideration for purposes of priority if the
         epithet and the respective combination are in other respects in
         accordance with the Rules.  In the same way, an epithet of a
         subspecies or a taxon of a lower rank may be legitimate even
         if originally published under an illegitimate name of the
         subsequent higher taxon.”

•   1950–48 (Art. 26 Prop. 5) by Hylander was accepted as amended,
    as suggested by the Rapporteur, namely only the last paragraph
    and its Example.
          In the discussion on this proposal it was emphasized (Dandy)
    that the name of a subdivision of a genus consists of a generic
    name and a subdivisional epithet, connected by a term.

•   1950–48 (Art. 36 Prop. 9) by Hylander (having received more
    than 75% no-votes) was rejected, but the Note was referred to the
    Editorial Committee.

•   1950–48 (Art. 41 Prop. 3) by Hylander: the first part was accepted
    (and referred to the Editorial Committee), the second part was
    referred to the Committee on Paleobotanical Nomenclature.

•   1950–48 (Art. 42qua. (new)) by Hylander (having received more
    than 75% no-votes), was accepted as amended (Camp):
    - in line 1, to delete the words “or a mixomorph”;
    - in the Note, to place a full stop after “status”, and delete the rest.

•   1950–48 (Art. 43ter (new)) by Hylander (the mail vote resulting in
    more than 75% no-votes) was accepted.  Suggestions to supplement
    “generic name”  by adding specific name and subspecific name
    (Donk) and to delete “chimaera”  (Dandy) were referred to the
    Editorial Committee.

•   1950–48 (Art. 59 Prop. 4) by Hylander (having received more than
    75% no-votes) was rejected, but it was agreed to replace  “badly
    chosen” by  “inappropriate” (Lanjouw) and to insert  “legitimate”
    (Hylander) in Art. 59.

•   1950–48 (Art. 70, 71, etc (new)) by Hylander: the Synopsis presents
    a single proposal to replace the entire section on orthography by ten
    new Articles.  The preliminary mail vote (and the proceedings) treats
    these as ten separate proposals.  These were all rejected (more than
    75% no-votes in the preliminary mail vote), although the Editorial
    Committee would study them.

•   1950–48 (Rec. XLIVbis Prop. 2) by Hylander was rejected, but the
    proposed Art. 80 was referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   1950–62 (Rec. XXI Prop. 2) by the committee on nomenclature,
    American Society of Plant Taxonomists was accepted as amended
    (Fosberg) to replace the first part of the Recommendation only. 
    The Utrecht conference had recommended to replace  “invalid”  by 
    “not validly published”.

•   1950–62 (Rec. XXbis (new)) by Fosberg and 1950–62 (Rec. XXter
    (new)) by the committee on nomenclature, American Society of
    Plant Taxonomists, the first part of the former was combined with
    the last sentence of the latter; the resulting proposal was accepted.

•   1950–62 (Rec. XXIIbis (new)) by Fosberg was split into two,
    a recommendation dealing with illegitimate names and one with
    nomina nuda; both were accepted.

•   (1940–12) 1950–62 (Art. 36 Prop. 4) by Fosberg was accepted as
    amended to include a date (Camp), namely 1 Jan. 1952 (Hylander).

•   1950–62 (Art. 37 Prop. 7) by Fosberg (the Utrecht conference
    finding it the same as 1940–01 (Art. 41 Prop. 1) and suggesting to
    leave the choice to the Editorial Committee) was referred to the
    Editorial Committee, which would consider:
    - replacing  “its author, date, and place of publication” by  “proper
      bibliographic reference”  (Boivin),
    - adding  “however” after  “new combinations”  (Lanjouw)
    - and a new Note (Stearn):

       “An error of citation resulting from a misprint or the author’s
         ignorance of the precise date of publication does not, however,
         invalidate the transfer or new name.”

    Also, the Utrecht conference had recommended to add a definition
    of basionym.

•   (1940–06) 1950–62 (Rec. XXXIbis (new)) by Rehder (the Utrecht
    conference finding it unnecessary, and the American taxonomists
    finding it the same as XXXIIsepties); the second part was referred
    to the Editorial Committee.

•   1950–62 (Art. 70 Prop. 8) by Rickett was accepted as amended
    (Schopf), the second sentence to read:

       “When two or more generic names are so similar, and the plants
         so closely related, as to cause confusion, they are to be treated
         as variants of the same name.”

    and referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   1950–72 (Art. 12 Prop. 7) by Camp was accepted as amended
    (Sprague):

      “For categories specially applicable to the genetic analyses of
        taxa see Art. 34ter, 34quater, 35quinquies.”

•   It is not known what is in 1950–77.  However, Camp (in Amer. J.
    Bot. 37: 31. 1950) notes that the RHS had received a preliminary
    version of the proposals on cultivated plants coordinated by him,
    and had drawn up  “a formal critique of the tentative proposals”
    which was sent to Lanjouw.

•   1950–84 (Rec. VIII Prop. 4) by Lam was amended (Sprague) so
    that (f) was replaced by a Rule that the rules of priority and
    typification should not apply to names of taxa above the rank of
    order; this new Rule was accepted.
          It was further amended (Bremekamp resp. Boivin) to delete
    (d) and (e); the proposal, thus amended (minus (d), (e), and (f))
    was accepted, in principle.
          Later, after further deliberation, it was proposed to amend
    (a) and (b) so
    - that the endings for subdivisions be -phytina (instead of
       -phytea), for all groups except Fungi, in which divisions should
       end in -mycota, subdivisions in -mycotina;
    - to delete in (b) sub 1  “(or autotrophic Thallophyta generally)”;
    - to delete in (b) sub 2  “(or heterotrophic Thallophyta generally)”.
    Thus amended, it was again accepted.  It was further proposed to
    change  “order”  to  “family”  in the new Rule (of (f)); this
    amendment in the Rule was accepted, but then referred to the
    Editorial Committee.

•   [sn–01] (Art. 8bis (new)) submitted by Lanjouw to the Utrecht
    conference, and modified by a committee of that conference,
    was accepted.  The Section referred a suggestion to expand the
    new Article to the Editorial Committee.

•   [sn–05] (Art. 26bis (new)) by the Utrecht conference inspired by
    Rec. XI Prop. 1, was accepted as amended, by the deletion of
    “if no earlier legitimate name is available”  (Baehni) and by using
    “subgenus”  instead of  “subdivision”  (Hylander).

•   [sn–06] (Rec. XIX Prop. 1) by the Rapporteur was accepted as
    amended (Sprague) the recommendation to be rephrased:

      “Botanists proposing new epithets for subdivisions of species
       should avoid such as have been used previously for species in
       the same genus.” 
    (as the Index Kewensis did not register names of infraspecific
    taxa, making it impractical to check these).

•   [sn–07] (Art. 36 Prop. 11) by the Utrecht conference was accepted.
    An Example from Selaginella was suggested (Rogers).

•   [sn–09] (Art. 37bis Prop. 3) by Fosberg to the Utrecht conference,
    in response to and inspired by 1950–62 (Art. 37 Prop. 6) by
    St. John; there was discussion on Art. 37bis which had not been
    rendered quite as agreed at Amsterdam.  It was suggested (Donk)
    to replace  “but” in the first line by  “or”.  The proposal was
    accepted as thus amended and by the deletion of the Note (Fosberg).
          There was a new motion on alternative names (Rickett),
    accepted as amended (Sprague):  “On and from Jan. lst., 1952
    alternative names shall be treated as not validly published.”  with
    exact wording to be left to the Editorial Committee.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This page: 2015 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel
              all rights reserved