P R E F A C E
 

This ‘Sydney Code’ will for the most part look quite familiar to those who have
used the ‘Leningrad Code’. The same system for numbering paragraphs of
Articles and Recommendations is employed (although certain paragraphs have
necessarily been given new numbers, when new material was inserted ahead of
them). A self-explanatory numbering scheme for examples is now introduced,
making reference to these more simple. The Sydney Congress accepted or
referred to the Editorial Committee slightly more proposals than did the
Leningrad Congress – almost a hundred in all. Most of these, however, did very
little to alter the substance of the Code, merely refining existing provisions.

Many botanists will consider the major alteration to be acceptance of con-
servation of names of species. This authorization was adopted cautiously, with
severe warning that it is not to be abused, and with an explicit restriction to
names of ‘species of major economic importance’ (Art. 14.2). No new machinery
is established to handle proposals for names of species, which will be considered
by the same committees as names at other ranks (including, it is now official,
those proposed for rejection under an altered Art. 69). While two Articles (70 and
71) were deleted at Leningrad, only one was deleted at Sydney: Art. 74, dealing
with different spellings employed by Linnaeus. The few cases of spellings de-
sirable to retain despite this deletion can (and presumably will) be dealt with via
conservation. Arts. 60 and 61 were remodelled – and could even have been easily
combined into one, although both numbers were retained by the Editorial
Committee because of the usual instructions to maintain numbering insofar as
possible.

Art. 59 and related provisions were thoroughly remodelled and a change in the
starting-point dates for fungi was adopted, but conferring a privileged nomen-
clatural status on certain post-Linnaean names. As is probably true for some
other proposals as well, not all of the ramifications may yet have been foreseen,
and paragraph 9 of the Preamble, endorsing ‘established custom’ when con-
sequences of a rule are doubtful, may become particularly relevant. The Code
includes many dates for the application of various rules (see Taxon 27: 561-562.
1978); at Sydney some of these were actually eliminated (e.g. in Art. 59 and Art.
H.10). The provisions for hybrids (App. I) were rather thoroughly overhauled
but without significant change except for adoption of the word ‘nothotaxon’ to

  XI

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1983  —  Sydney Code

–  i –

text: © 1983, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Preface  

refer to a taxon, at any rank, of hybrid origin (including nothogenera, notho-
species, etc.). Another change, which will have little real effect on the vast
majority of names, is the declaration that the types of names of genera (and
higher categories) are actually the same as the types of names of species, i.e.
usually specimens. No longer do we say that ‘a species’ is the type of a generic
name, although the type may be referred to by the name of the species of which it
is the type (Art. 10.1).

Autonyms have been a source of turmoil almost since they were introduced.
Their status (or perhaps more accurately, utter lack of status) was not always
understood by authors or editors. At Sydney the choice was whether autonyms
are to be treated as not validly published or as validly published. The latter choice
was made, with the additional proviso that an autonym has priority over the
name(s) of the same date that automatically established it. Autonyms still do not
bear author citations, and they themselves do not serve as basionyms – as the
Editorial Committee has attempted to illustrate by means of notes and examples
(cf. Art. 57.3). In fact, the Committee seized the opportunity to rearrange all the
material dealing with autonyms in a more logical and straightforward way,
which we hope will clarify the whole subject.

The procedures for producing this edition of the Code have followed the well
established outline in use since the Stockholm Congress of 1950. Published
proposals for amendment, with technical comments by the Rapporteurs and
various relevant reports, were assembled in a Synopsis of Proposals (Taxon 30:
95-293. Feb. 1981). Results of the Preliminary Mail Ballot on these proposals, a
strictly advisory but very helpful expression of opinion, were made available at
registration for the Nomenclature Section of the XIII International Botanical
Congress, in Sydney, Australia. The Section met August 17–21, 1981, just before
the regular sessions of the Congress, and made the final decisions on all pro-
posals, often with some modifications of text. These decisions were adopted by
resolution of the closing plenary session of the Congress on August 28 and
became official at that time. A list of them appeared promptly in Taxon (30:
904–911. Nov. 1981). The full Report of the Section, including the essence of the
debates and comments made during the deliberations, was published soon
afterwards (Englera 2. 124 pp. 1982).

It is the duty of the Editorial Committee, elected by the Section (and, by
tradition, from among those present for the discussions), to incorporate the
decisions into the Code and to make in it whatever strictly editorial changes are
desirable for smooth, consistent, accurate, clear reading. The composition of the
Editorial Committee usually changes slightly at each Congress. This time, the
changes were perhaps more profound than usual, most notably in the absence of
Frans Stafleu, who contributed so much to editing of the Code since 1950. Upon
his decision, in 1979, that he could not attend the Sydney Congress, I reluctantly
agreed to assume his duties as Rapporteur-général and hence as chairman of the

XII  

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1983  —  Sydney Code

– ii –

text: © 1983, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

  Preface

Editorial Committee. It was a source of enormous satisfaction that Werner
Greuter was willing to take over my previous duties as vice-rapporteur for the
Congress and as secretary of the Editorial Committee. His faithful and am-
bitious attention to every detail necessary for distribution of documents and his
profound understanding of the Code contributed immensely to clarity and
precision of debates in the Nomenclature Section as well as to this edition of the
Code. He has my warmest thanks both for the superb way in which he has carried
out his official duties and for his hospitality to the Editorial Committee. The five
new members of this committee (Hervé Burdet, Wm. Chaloner, John McNeill,
Dan Nicolson, and Paul Silva) have carried on its long tradition of friendly spirit
and great industry.

After circulation of two drafts of the English text of the new Code, the Editorial
Committee met at the Botanischer Garten & Botanisches Museum Berlin-
Dahlem, March 1–6, 1982, on the generous invitation of its Director, our
secretary. All members of the Committee were present for this essential oppor-
tunity to consider a myriad of editorial details. Besides informal discussions, the
Committee met together for more than 46 hours – more time discussing the Code
than the sessions in Sydney! Yet we would be the last to claim that the wording is
perfect. That is a goal doubtless never to be reached. We have tried to avoid
certain simple but essentially meaningless or incorrect phrases like ‘legitimate
epithet’ or ‘type of a taxon’, although eliminating shortcuts such as these may
result in a more elaborate – albeit more precise – wording. The Editorial
Committee is aware of several instances of imprecise, conflicting, or otherwise
unsatisfactory wording which still remain; but it does not believe that a re-
solution is always in its power as an editorial matter. Any effort to resolve certain
points could be interpreted as extending the operation of the Code – or as
restricting it, depending upon one’s reading of the present text. Failure, there-
fore, to make a change at a point of ambiguity does not necessarily mean that we
consider the present text to be satisfactory. Some matters must await the next
Congress!

We have continued our effort, to which major attention was given in the
Leningrad edition, to be consistent within the Code regarding bibliographic style
and details, in a manner which is agreeable and non-confusable to all users.
Many aids are now available which did not exist years ago. While none of them
provides all the answers for achieving standardization in a document which deals
with all groups of plants and an incredible diversity of literature, we have made
heavy use of ‘TL-2’ (Taxonomic Literature, ed. 2); ‘B-P-H’ (Botanico-
Periodicum-Huntianum); the Draft Index of Author Abbreviations compiled at
The Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; and the Catalogue des
Périodiques de la Bibliothèque des Conservatoire et Jardin Botaniques de la Ville
de Genève. Some users of the Code will note that bibliographic details of former
editions are no longer always given in the Examples. Most persons who wish to
use the Examples for pedagogical purposes or to study them in great detail will

  XIII

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1983  —  Sydney Code

– iii –

text: © 1983, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

Preface  

have access to ‘ING’ (Index Nominum Genericorum), and the existence of that
new work has meant that references to place of publication of generic names
could be omitted; similarly, when names at other ranks are adequately indexed, it
is not necessary for the Code to repeat the references.

All members of the Editorial Committee participated in drawing up the official
English text of the Code. The French and German texts are also considered
official, but should there be any effective difference between the versions (due to
inconsistencies in translation – not necessarily typographical errors), the English
wording is arbitrarily regarded as correct. The French and German translations
were prepared by Hervé Burdet, Vincent Demoulin, Werner Greuter, and Paul
Hiepko, who finalized their work at a meeting in Berlin early in October of 1982.
Changes in Art. 10 necessitated changes in the format of a number of entries in
Appendix III, where a type must now be stated as a binomial (meaning, the type
of that binomial) or (under certain conditions) as a specimen (or other element).
Various members of the Editorial Committee assumed responsibility for updat-
ing App. II and III in this and other respects: Paul Silva (Algae), Vincent
Demoulin (Fungi & Lichenes – now in a single list), John McNeill and Dan
Nicolson (other groups). The English index entries were revamped by Desmond
Meikle and myself.

Besides the members of the Editorial Committee, who maintained a gruelling
schedule with exceptional good humor in order that the Code might be more
promptly published, I am grateful to many other persons and agencies: Frans
Stafleu was happily able to be in Berlin when the Editorial Committee met, and
served as a wise consultant; many persons contributed editorial suggestions,
including Peter Yeo in regard to Appendix I and other matters relating to
hybrids, R. K. Brummitt in regard to autonyms, and Richard Korf on matters
relating to fungi, including the lists of conserved names; the Organising
Committee of the Congress (W. J. Cram, executive secretary), the University of
Sydney, and Hansjörg Eichler saw to it that our facilities in Sydney were
provided with every convenience for efficient and enjoyable sessions; the Berlin
Herbarium made possible editorial meetings, publication of the Report of the
Section, and the herculean work of the secretary of this Committee; the in-
stitutions with which many of the Committee members are affiliated supported
their attendance at meetings; the National Science Foundation of the U.S.
provided funds for my travel, necessary supplies and assistance, and biblio-
graphical investigations.

The scores of botanists who serve on the nomenclature committees are at work
the year ’round, especially between Congresses, dealing with proposals for
conservation or, in the case of ad hoc committees, the special problems assigned
to them by the Nomenclature Section. Botanical Nomenclature is remarkable
for the large number of taxonomists who voluntarily work so effectively and for
such long hours, to the immeasurable benefit of all their colleagues who must use
plant names and on whose behalf this word of sincere thanks is expressed.

XIV  

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1983  —  Sydney Code

– iv –

text: © 1983, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

  Preface

The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature is published under the
ultimate authority of the International Botanical Congress. Provisions for modi-
fication of it are detailed in Division III of the Code and are described above. An
account of the international organization of botanical nomenclature appears in
McVaugh, Ross, and Stafleu, An Annotated Glossary of Botanical Nomencla-
ture (Regnum Vegetabile 56: 28–30.1969). The various special committees listed
in Division III operate under the auspices of the International Association for
Plant Taxonomy (IAPT), which is itself a section of the International Union of
Biological Sciences (IUBS). The secretaries of these committees, along with
additional ex officio and elected members, constitute the General Committee,
which represents botanical nomenclature between Congresses and serves dually
as the Commission on Nomenclature of Plants of IUBS.

The truly international and cooperative nature which characterizes the nomen-
clature committees, the broad democratic way in which the Code is subject to
modification, and the common consent by which its provisions are accepted
throughout the world, all make it a pleasure as well as a privilege for each of us to
serve in these endeavours.
 

December 1982 Edward G. Voss

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  XV

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1983  —  Sydney Code

–  v –

text: © 1983, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel

______________________________________________________________________ 


 

 
 
 
 
 

[ to body of the 1983, Sydney Code ]