P R E F A C E

         The general outline of the procedure adopted in the preparation of this
“Paris Code” has been the same as that followed for the Stockholm Code
(1952). The preliminary postal vote was taken on a larger scale than before;
the number of proposed amendments, although somewhat lower than before,
was still considerable. Notwithstanding this, the Nomenclature Section at the
Paris Congress was able to achieve reasonable results in a reasonable time
chiefly because it decided that it would, in general, not discuss proposals that
had received less than 200 votes in the postal ballot.

         The Stockholm Congress left much to the discretion of the Editorial
Committee; the Paris Congress did the same and provided an even more supple
motion empowering its Committee to take the necessary decisions. This motion,
put forward by the President of the Nomenclature Section, Dr. J. Rousseau,
together with the report on the proceedings of the section, has been the basis
of the work of the Committee (see Taxon 4: 121~177. 1954).

         The Editorial Committee met at Utrecht in the course of November 1955.
At the conclusion of this meeting a decision had been taken on all important
points. It had also become clear that a meeting like this is an absolute necessity
for the functioning of the Committee. Only by free discussion around a table
is it possible to achieve a satisfactory draft incorporating the often incomplete
and sometimes even contradictory decisions taken by the Congress.

         The amendments to the Code, with the exception of some editorial
changes, are based on the decisions reached by the Nomenclature Section of
the VIIIth International Botanical Congress, Paris, July 1954. These decisions
were officially adopted by the plenary session of that Congress on 13 July 1954
(see Taxon 3: 193. 1954).

         The Nomenclature Section decided that the Code should be published in
the English, French, and German languages. The three texts would all be
official, but it was decided that, should there be any inconsistency between
the versions, the English one would be regarded arbitrarily as correct.

         The English text has been drawn up by all the members of the Committee,
the English speaking members having the ultimate decision in matters of
grammar or idiom.

         The French text has been prepared by a special subcommittee, consisting
of the following members of the Editorial Committee: Dr. Baehni, Dr. Robyns,
Dr. Rousseau (chairman of the subcommittee) and Dr. de Vilmorin. It goes
without saying that they used Dr. Baehni's translation of the Stockholm Code
as a basis for their text. The final draft of this French version was prepared
at a meeting held in Brussels in August 1956.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

 – i –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

         The German text has been under the care of Dr. Schulze, who has been
in close co~operation with Dr. G. Buchheim from Berlin~Dahlem. The Editorial
Committee is extremely grateful to Dr. Buchheim for his very valuable work
and for the fine way in which he has helped Dr. Schulze to complete the large
share of the work that otherwise would have fallen to him alone.

         To the official text in the three languages, there has been added a Spanish
translation prepared by Dr. A. Ponce de León y Aymé, Dra. M. T. Alvarez
and Hno. Alain (E. Liogier). These three botanists constituted a special
committee established for this purpose by the Sociedad Cubaria de Botánica.
This translation has no official status and the responsibility for it rests wholly
with the Cuban committee. However, the Editorial Committee is extremely
grateful to them for making it possible to publish this translation in the same
volume as the official text, since this will undoubtedly greatly enhance the
usefulness of the Code by making it accessible to a still larger public.

         A Russian translation of the Code will be made by Dr. Y. Prokhanov,
and will be published separately in the U.S.S.R. in the course of 1957. We
are glad that such a translation will be published so soon and we hope that the
next edition of our Code will also include a Russian version.

         One of the main new features of this Code is the separation of the
Preamble and Principles from the Rules and Recommendations. It is a pleasure
to state again that the changed arrangement is mainly based on the proposals
submitted to the Paris Congress by Dr. A. Ponce de León y Aymé and
Dra. M. T. Alvarez.

         It is necessary to include here a few remarks on the status and contents
of the various appendices to the Code.

         Appendix I (Names of hybrids and some special categories) falls within
the responsibility of the Committee for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants.
The text is the same as that included in the Stockholm Code.

         Appendix II (Special provisions concerning fossil plants) is cared for
by the Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature. This Committee has
decided to undertake a wholesale revision of the Appendix on the occasion
of the Ninth International Botanical Congress, to be held at Montréal in 1959.
The present text is the same as the 1952 one.

         Appendices I and II are integral parts of the Code and, so far as the
nomenclature of the categories of plants to which they apply is concerned,
their provisions are as binding as those of the Code itself.

         Appendix III (Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda) has been
amended and supplemented in accordance with the decisions taken at the Paris
Congress. It is realized that it is far from ideal, especially in the section
dealing with the Spermatophyta. Most entries have been checked against the
original literature and it has become clear that the list is in need of a thorough
revision. It was impossible to accomplish this revision before the publication
of this edition of the Code. The Committee for Spermatophyta will have to

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

 – ii –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

reconsider many cases in the light of present knowledge and current nomen~
clatural legislation (see Taxon 5: 85. 1956). The defects of this section have
been brought to light especially by the preparation of the Index Nominum
Genericorum. Several sections dealing with names of cryptogams have already
been thoroughly revised (e.g. algae and lichenes). The amount of time and
energy that a great number of prominent botanists give towards the composition
of these lists is not always realized. It is impossible to list them all, but a
deserved word of thanks is certainly in place here.

         Appendix IV (Determination of types) has been reprinted verbatim in
accordance with the definite decision to do so taken by the Nomenclature
Section at Paris. From the discussions in the Editorial Committee it has become
c1ear that its members are not over-enthusiastic about this retention; the really
valuable prescriptions have already been incorporated in the Code and the
remaining items do not really belong here. Still, the above-mentioned decision
was binding and nothing has been changed.

         Appendix V (Guide to the citation of botanical literature) is subject to
similar considerations. However useful such a guide may be to all botanists,
it cannot be denied that its place is not in this Code, as it has nothing to do
with nomenclatural legislation. It should furthermore be pointed out that part
of its field is covered by the International Code for the Abbreviation of Titles
of Periodicals (ISO/R 4, reproduced in UNESCO Bull. Libraries, 9: 7~8.
1955), a code which is officially adhered to by many countries. The natural
thing would be for our Appendix to follow this Code, but in various points
there are deviations. It does not seem right that an official international
botanical code is at variance with this official code of abbreviations.

         The Subject Index always gives cause for concern to the editors. Much
time and energy has been given to it and several of the members of the
Committee have helped Dr. Stafleu in its compilation. It is realized, however,
that the matter treated by the Code is so diverse and intricate that it will
always be possible to find items which have been omitted, and it is also very
difficult to decide which are the really important places to cite under each
entry. The Index has been drawn up in four languages but the basic language
is English. This means that words that are sufficiently alike in the various
languages are not repeated.

         Finally I wish to express in a few words my appreciation of the work
of the various people who have done so much towards editing this Code. In
the first place I tender my best thanks to my colleagues of the Editorial
Committee. The extremely pleasant way in which the work of the Committee
has been done and the fine atmosphere of co-operation in correspondence
and at the Utrecht meeting have greatly impressed me. The task of the
Editorial Committee is one of compromise because so many of their problems
are open to divergent solutions. This spirit of compromise has prevailed
throughout the work of all our members. The work of the International
Bureau for Plant Taxonomy has this time been greatly facilitated by the fact

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

– iii –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

that each member has shown himself ready to undertake extra duties of a
technical nature like proofreading, checking of references, etc. etc.

         The work done by Dr. F. A. Stafleu and Miss W. Keuken, the secretary
of the International Bureau, in connection with the editing of this Code has
been invaluable. Anyone who attended the nomenclature sessions of the Paris
Congress or who has taken part in other meetings on botanical nomenclature
knows the excellent work of this team. Apart from expressing my thanks, I can
only hope that both will be available at the nomenclature sessions at Montréal
in 1959.

         The work of the Committees on Botanical Nomenclature is supported by
annual subsidies from I.U.B.S. and U.N.E.S.C.O. It is again a pleasure to
acknowledge this important financial support, which enables us to proceed
with our work. For the second time a special grant towards the publication
of the Code has been given by I.U.B.S. and our appreciation of this generous
help is as sincere as before.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

International Bureau for
Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature
September 1956.

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1956  —  Paris Code

 – iv –

text: © 1956, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

__________________________________________________________________ 
 

 
 
 
 
 

[ to body of the 1956, Paris Code ]