Action, 1959, Montreal Congress

CONGRESS ACTION, IX IBC (1959)

Congress action on proposals-to-amend-the-Code at the IX IBC,
the 1959, Montreal Congress. Based on (by permission of the IAPT):

      [Frans A. Stafleu ?]
    “IXth International Botanical Congress, Montreal 1959:
      Nomenclature Section” (in Taxon 8: 247-252. 1964).

But adjusted here and there according to the proceedings presented by
J. Lanjouw and F.A. Stafleu (in Regnum Veg. 20. 1960).

Links go to the relevant page of a PDF, a local copy (copyright IAPT).
However, this may be off one page (browser-dependent; some browsers
do not count the page added by JSTOR).

See also:

• conversion table
• list of proposals

Synopsis	Proposal as submitted	Congress action	Comm. advice
Preamble - Prop. A	– 120 – Schulze & Buchheim	– ed.c.
Prin. I - Prop. A	– 264 – Silva

was accepted as amended (Faegri) to include “names of”
before “taxonomic groups”.

Prin. III - Prop. A

– 151 – Bullock

was accepted as amended (the proposer), the Principle to start:
“The nomenclature of”.

Prin. IV - Prop. A	– 268 – Silva	– no [mail vote]
Prin. IV - Prop. B	– 269 – Silva	– no [mail vote]
Prin. IV - Prop. C	– 270 – Silva	– no [mail vote]

     however, a motion (Fosberg) was accepted to indeed insert
     here the phrase from Art. 11.1: “with a given circumscription,
     position and rank”.

Prin. V - Prop. A	– 005 – St. John	– no [mail vote]
Prin. V - Prop. B	– 265 – Silva	– ed.c.
Prin. V - Prop. C	– 152 – Bullock	– withdrawn
Prin. VII - Prop. A	– 263 – Silva	– no
Prin. VIII - Prop. A	– 266 – Silva	– no
Prin. VIII - Prop. B	– [sn-01] – Rapporteur	– no
Prin. IX - Prop. A	– 267 – Silva	– no
Art. 1 - Prop. A	– 066 – Fuchs	– no [mail vote]
Art. 2 - Prop. A	– 067 – Fuchs	– no [mail vote]
Art. 3 - Prop. A	– 068 – Fuchs	– no [mail vote]
Art. 4 - Prop. A	– 023 – Fosberg	– no [mail vote]
Art. 4 - Prop. B	– 069 – Fuchs	– no [mail vote]
Art. 4 - Prop. C	– 202 – Christensen	– no [mail vote]

          A motion (Ross) was referred to the Editorial Committee,
          to reword the second sentence of Art. 4: “... subordinate
          ranks of the plant kingdom: Divisio, ...” .

Art. 4 - Prop. D	– 215 – Dostál & al.	– no [mail vote]
Art. 4 - Prop. E	– 226 – Dostál & al.	– no [mail vote]

          A motion (Reeder) was rejected, to add after “the prefix
          sub (sub)” “or super (super)”, in part because it would
          allow “superspecies”.

          The Committee for Cultivated Plants (‘for Nomenclature
          of Hybrids’) recommended to replace “special categories
          resulting from genetic analysis of taxa” by “hybrids and
          some special categories”.

Rec. 4A - Prop. A	– 024 – Fosberg	– yes
Art. 5 - Prop. A	– 025 – Fosberg	– c.fun. / ed.c.
Art. 5 - Prop. B	– 051 – by Mansfeld

     was discussed together with Art. 20 Prop. C (179 by
     Dandy & Ross), Art. 68 Prop. A (311 by Proskauer)
     and a mimeographed document by Bullock, Dandy,
     and Ross.
         Of these, Art. 5 Prop. B and Art. 68 Prop. A were
     rejected, while Art. 20 Prop. C was withdrawn in
     favour of a replacement proposal (Fosberg) to add
     “Necker’s species naturales” to the examples of
     unitary designations of species under Art. 68(3).
     This was accepted.

Art. 5 - Prop. C	– 070 – Fuchs	– no [mail vote]
Art. 6 - Prop. A	– 281 – Morton	– yes
Art. 7 - Prop. A	– 026 – Fosberg	– yes
Art. 7 - Prop. B	– 071 – Fuchs	– no [mail vote]
Art. 7 - Prop. C	– 307 – Potonié

     was considered with Art. 7 Prop. E (145 by Schulze
     & Buchheim): the Committee for Palaeobotanical
     Nomenclature recommended that Note 5 be reworded
     as:

       “The typification of genera based on plant megafossils
         and plant microfossils (form and organ genera), fungi
         imperfecti, and any other analogous genera ...”

Art. 7 - Prop. D	– 276 – Silva	– ed.c.
Art. 7 - Prop. E	– 145 – Schulze & Buchheim	– see Art. 7 - C
Art. 7 - Prop. F	– 153 – Bullock & Ross	– no
Art. 7 - Prop. G	– 154 – Bullock & Ross	– ed.c. [ ]
Art. 7 - Prop. H	– 155 – Bullock & Ross	– no

but a Special Committee on Neotypes established.

Art. 7 - Prop. I	– 156 – Bullock & Ross	– ed.c.
Art. 7 - Prop. K	– 157 – Bullock & Ross	– yes
Art. 7 - Prop. L	– 158 – Bullock & Ross	– yes	c.alg.: +
Art. 7 - Prop. M	– 213 – Dostál & al.	– no [mail vote]
Art. 7 - Prop. N	– [sn-02] – Rapporteur	– yes
Art. 8 - Prop. A	– 072 – Fuchs	– no [mail vote]
Art. 8 - Prop. B	– 156 – Bullock & Ross	– ed.c.
Rec. 8A - Prop. A	– 072 – Fuchs	– ed.c.
Rec. 8B - Prop. A	– 072 – Fuchs	– ed.c.
Rec. 8B - Prop. A	– 159 – Bullock & Ross	– ed.c.
Rec. 8C - Prop. A	– 160 – Bullock & Ross	– yes
Rec. 8C - Prop. B	– 072 – Fuchs	– ed.c.
Rec. 8C - Prop. B	– 160 – Bullock & Ross	– ed.c.
Rec. 8D - Prop. A	– 072 – Fuchs	– ed.c.
Rec. 8D - Prop. A	– 161 – Bullock & Ross	– ed.c.
Rec. 8E - Prop. A	– 072 – Fuchs	– ed.c.
Rec. 8E - Prop. B	– 162 – Bullock & Ross	– yes
Art. 9 - Prop. A	– 163 – Bullock & Ross	– ed.c.
Art. 10 - Prop. A	– 101 – Staplin	– yes	c.fos.: +
Art. 10 - Prop. B	– 277 – Silva	– no
Art. 10 - Prop. C	– 120a – Schulze & Buchheim	– ed.c.
Art. 10 - Prop. D	– 164 – Bullock & Ross	– ed.c.
Art. 10bis - Prop. A	– 317 – Baehni	– no
Art. 11 - Prop. A	– 282 – Morton	– ed.c.
Art. 11 - Prop. B	– 145a – Holm	– yes
Art. 13 - Prop. A	– 018 – Donk	– c.fun.	c.bry.: –, c.fun.: –
Art. 13 - Prop. B	– 058 – Silva	– no	c.alg.: –
Art. 13 - Prop. C	– 305 – C. Bryophyta	– yes	c.bry.: +
Art. 13 - Prop. D	– 306 – C. Bryophyta	– no	c.bry.: –
Art. 13 - Prop. E	– 283 – Morton	– ed.c.
Art. 13 - Prop. F	– 228 – Dostál & al.	– no	c.al.: –, br.: –, fu.: +
Art. 13 - 321	– 321 – Hughes		c.fun.: +

was amended (Committee for Fungi and Lichens),
to replace “Hyphomycetes” by “Fungi Imperfecti”.

Art. 14 - Prop. A	– 001 – Little	no [mail vote]
Art. 14 - Prop. B	– 001 – Little	no [mail vote]
Art. 14 - Prop. C	– 001 – Little	no [mail vote]
Art. 14 - Prop. D	– 001 – Little	no [mail vote]
Art. 14 - Prop. E	– 001 – Little	no [mail vote]

     were considered together with Art. 14bis Prop. A and
     Art. 15 Prop. B (302 and 303 by Dandy & Ross),
     and a compromise proposal (Lanjouw) [the nomina
     specifica conservanda-proposals]: all were rejected
     en bloc. Instead a resolution was accepted, which
     was later adopted as Resolution 2 by the Congress.

Art. 14 - Prop. F	– 015 – Traub	– no [mail vote]
Art. 14 - Prop. G	– 027 – Fosberg	– no [mail vote]
Art. 14 - Prop. H	– 042 – Rickett & Stafleu	– yes
Art. 14 - Prop. I	– 043 – Rickett & Stafleu	– yes
Art. 14bis - Prop. A	– 302 – Dandy & Ross	– see Art. 14 - A
Art. 15 - Prop. A	– 038 – Rickett & Smith	– yes
Art. 15 - Prop. B	– 303 – Dandy & Ross	– see Art. 14 - A
Rec. 15A - Prop. A	– 039 – Rickett & Smith	– yes
Rec. 16A - Prop. A	– 023 – Fosberg	– no [mail vote]
Rec. 16A - Prop. B	– 216 – Dostál & al.	– no [mail vote]
Art. 17 - Prop. A	– 012 – Buchheim

was accepted as amended (Tryon), the new provision
to start: “Names of orders published”.

Art. 17 - Prop. B	– 062 – Proskauer	– no [mail vote]
Art. 17 - Prop. C	– 272 – Silva	– yes
Art. 17 - Prop. D	– 136 – Schulze & Buchheim	– withdrawn
Art. 17 - Prop. E	– 214 – Dostál & al.	– yes
Art. 18 - Prop. A	– 059 – Proskauer	– no [mail vote]
Art. 18 - Prop. B	– 073 – Fuchs	– no [mail vote]
Art. 18 - Prop. C	– 093 – Rickett	– yes
Art. 18 - Prop. D	– 273 – Silva

was accepted as amended, as suggested by the Rapporteur,
to add “unless conserved” to the proposed Note.

Art. 18 - Prop. E	– 013 – Buchheim	– yes
Art. 18 - Prop. F	– 176 – Bullock	– yes
Art. 18 - Prop. G	– 177 – Bullock	– yes
Art. 18 - Prop. H	– 217 – Dostál & al.	– no [mail vote]
Art. 18 - Prop. I	– 259 – Dostál	– no [mail vote]
Rec. 18A - Prop. A	– 060 – Proskauer	– no [mail vote]
Art. 19 - Prop. A	– 061 – Proskauer	– withdrawn
Art. 19 - Prop. B	– 074 – Fuchs	– no [mail vote]
Art. 19 - Prop. C	– 274 – Silva	– yes
Art. 19 - Prop. D	– 260 – Dostál	– no [mail vote]
Art. 20 - Prop. A	– 146 – Holm	– yes
Art. 20 - Prop. B	– 165 – Ross

was accepted as amended (the proposer), replacing
“by specific names” by “by any specific name”.

Art. 20 - Prop. C	– 179 – Dandy & Ross	– see Art. 5 - A
Art. 21 - Prop. A	– 284 – Morton	– yes
Art. 21 - Prop. B	– 166 – Ross	– yes [ ]
Art. 21 - Prop. C	– 180 – Ross	– yes
Rec. 21A - Prop. A	– 182 – Ross	– ed.c.
Art. 22 - Prop. A	– 075 – Fuchs	– no (mail vote)
Art. 22 - Prop. B	– 285 – Morton	– no (mail vote)
Rec. 22B - Prop. A	– 181 – Ross	– ed.c.
Rec. 22C - Prop. A	– 040 – Wherry	– no (mail vote)
Art. 23 - Prop. A	– 049 – St. John	– no (mail vote)
Art. 23 - Prop. B	– 286 – Morton	– yes
Art. 23 - Prop. C	– 167 – Ross	– yes
Art. 23 - Prop. D	– 199 – Deighton	– ed.c.
Rec. 23A - Prop. A	– 231 – Dostál & al.	– ed.c.
Art. 24 - Prop. A	– 308 – Fosberg	– ed.c.
Art. 24 - Prop. B	– 168 – Ross	– yes
Art. 24 - Prop. C	– 218 – Dostál & al.	– yes
Art. 26 - Prop. A	– 076 – Fuchs	– no (mail vote)
Art. 26 - Prop. B	– 309 – Sandwith	– ed.c.
Rec. 26A - Prop. A	– 041 – Wherry	– no (mail vote)
Art. 27 - Prop. A	– 169 – Ross	– yes
Art. 29 - Prop. A	– 020 – Rickett

was accepted as amended to replace “the printer” by
“the publisher or his agent” (Stearn) and to become
a Recommendation (Fosberg).

Art. 29 - Prop. B	– 244 – Dostál	– ed.c.
Rec. 29A - Prop. A	– 028 – Fosberg	– ed.c.
Rec. 29A - Prop. B	– 120b – Schulze & Buchheim	– no (mail vote)
Art. 31 - Prop. A	– 245 – Dostál	– ed.c.
Art. 31 - Prop. A	– 287 – Morton	– ed.c.
Art. 31bis - Prop. A	– 002 – Little	– no (mail vote)
Art. 31ter - Prop. A	– 003 – Little	– no (mail vote)
Section 2 - Prop. A	– 183 – Ross	– no [mail vote]
Art. 32 - Prop. A	– 065 – Proskauer	– no (mail vote)
Art. 32 - Prop. B	– 109 – Traverse	– yes	c.fos.: +
Art. 32 - Prop. B	– 147 – Holm	– yes	c.fos.: +
Art. 32 - Prop. C	– 119 – Funkhouser	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. 32 - Prop. D	– 246 – Dostál	– ed.c.
Art. 32 - Prop. D	– 288 – Morton	– ed.c.
Art. 32 - Prop. E	– 170 – Ross	– yes
Art. 32 - Prop. F	– 185 – Ross	– no
Art. 32 - Prop. G	– 187 – Deighton

was accepted on the understanding that the Editorial
Committee would revise it in the light of the
suggestions made.

Art. 32 - Prop. H	– 188 – Deighton	– yes
Art. 32 - Prop. I	– 220 – Dostál & al.	– no (mail vote)
Art. 32 - Prop. K	– 223 – Dostál & al.	– yes
Art. 33 - Prop. A	– 189 – Bullock	– no

but a proposal (Lanjouw) was accepted, a new example
to be found by the Editorial Committee.

Art. 33 - Prop. B	– 222 – Dostál & al.	– ed.c.
Art. 33 - Prop. C	– 224 – Dostál & al.	– no
Art. 34 - Prop. A	– 011 – Bullock	– withdrawn
Art. 34 - Prop. B	– 094 – Mamay	– yes	c.fos.: +
Art. 34 - Prop. C	– 095 – Mamay		c.alg.: –, c.fos.: +

was referred to the Committee for Palaeobotanical
Nomenclature and the Committee for Algae. As these
did not agree with each other, the proposal was rejected
and instead a resolution was adopted:

“In view of the conflict between the Committees for
     Palaeobotany and Algae on the adoption of Art. 34,
     Prop. C, the Section requests them jointly to consider
     the consequences of its rejection and to report to the
     next Congress. The Section recommends that
     botanists should, in the interim, interpret Art. 34 in
     the sense intended by the Paris Congress.”

Art. 34 - Prop. D

– 097 – Cross & al.

– no

c.alg.: +, c.fos.: –

[the Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature did
recommend further consideration at a subsequent
Congress]

Art. 34 - Prop. E

– 184 – Ross

– no

        A motion (Ross) to replace “diagnosis” by “description”
        in Art. 34 was rejected. However, a motion (Rickett) was
        accepted to ask the Editorial Committee to scrutinize the
        words description, diagnosis, definition and make
        a recommendation on their use to the next Congress.

Rec. 34A - Prop. A

– 186 – Ross

was accepted as amended (Fosberg) to add “in addition
to the diagnosis”. The proposer said that the words
“of living plants” should still be added.

Art. 35 - Prop. A	– 110 – Traverse	– yes	c.fos.: +
Art. 35 - Prop. B	– 117 – Funkhouser	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. 35 - Prop. C	– 190 – Deighton	– as a Rec.
Rec. 35B - Prop. A	– 191 – Deighton	– yes
Art. 35bis - Prop. A	– 004 – Buchinger	– no (mail vote)
Art. 36 - Prop. A	– 096 – Mamay	– yes	c.fos.: +
Art. 36 - Prop. B	– 098 – Cross & al.	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. 36 - Prop. C	– 102 – Ames & al.	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. 36 - Prop. D	– 142 – Schulze & Buchheim	– yes	c.fos.: +
Art. 37 - Prop. A	– 221 – Dostál & al.	– no (mail vote)
Art. 39 - Prop. A	– 111 – Traverse	– yes	c.fos.: +
Art. 39 - Prop. B	– 225 – Dostál & al.	– ed.c.
Art. 40 - Prop. A	– 120c – Schulze & Buchheim

the Committee for Cultivated Plants (‘for Nomenclature
of Hybrids’) recommended to just delete Art. 40 instead.

Art. 41 - Prop. A	– 121 – Schulze & Buchheim	– ed.c.
Rec. 41A - Prop. A	– 029 – Fosberg	– yes
Rec. 41A - Prop. A	– 030 – Fosberg	– yes
Art. 42 - Prop. A	– 016, ‘no 2’ – De Wit	– no
Art. 42 - Prop. B	– 050 – St. John	– no (mail vote)
Art. 42 - Prop. C	– 289 – Morton	– ed.c.
Art. 42 - Prop. D	– 171 – Ross	– ed.c.
Rec. 42A - Prop. A	– 017, ‘no 3’ – De Wit	– no (mail vote)
Art. 43 - Prop. A	– 247 – Dostál	– no (mail vote)
Art. 44 - Prop. A	– 031 – Fosberg	– ed.c.
Art. 45 - Prop. A	– 032 – Fosberg	– yes
Art. 45 - Prop. B	– 264 – Silva	– gen.c.	c.alg.: +

        The Committee for Algae recommended to replace the
        paragraph that was to be deleted (per Prop. B) by a new
        provision, its placing to be left to the Editorial Committee:

          “If at the time of the transfer of a taxon to the plant
            kingdom, its name has not been validly published in
            accordance with this Code, the author giving it valid
            publication on or after 1 Jan. 196- must adopt its
            previous name and type, provided:
            (1) this name is available in its previous position; and
            (2) its use does not conflict with any provision of this
            Code.”

The Committee for Algae recommended to change the
first sentence of Art. 45 to read as follows:

          “The date of a name or of an epithet is that of its valid
            publication in accordance with the provisions of this
            Code, whether or not the taxon to which it applies
            was originally assigned to the plant kingdom.”

Art. 45 - Prop. C

– 148 – Holm

– yes

        It was noted (Smith) that in the Article and in the footnote,
        the zoological term “valid” should be replaced by
        “available”. This matter was referred to the Editorial
        Committee.

Rec. 45C - Prop. A	– 290 – Morton	– yes
Rec. 45G - Prop. A	– 006 – St. John	– no
Art. 46 - Prop. A	– 007 – St. John

was accepted as amended (as suggested by the Rapporteur),
this to be a Recommendation, with one author instead of
three authors.

Art. 46 - Prop. B	– 077 – Fuchs	– no (mail vote)
Art. 46 - Prop. C	– 232 – Dostál & al.	– ed.c.
Rec. 46A - Prop. A	– 044 – Rowley	– ed.c.
Rec. 46A - Prop. B	– 078 – Fuchs	– no (mail vote)
Rec. 46A - Prop. C	– 089 – Bullock	– no (mail vote)
Rec. 46A - Prop. D	– 233 – Dostál & al.	– no (mail vote)
Rec. 46B - Prop. A	– 033 – Fosberg	– yes
Rec. 46B - Prop. B	– 079 – Fuchs	– no [mail vote]
Rec. 46B - Prop. C	– 229 – Dostál & al.	– no (mail vote)
Rec. 46B - Prop. D	– 230 – Dostál & al.	– no (mail vote)
Rec. 46B - Prop. E	– 238 – Dostál & al.	– no (mail vote)
Rec. 46C - Prop. A	– 080 – Fuchs	– no (mail vote)
Art. 46bis - 320	– 320 – SMdF	– no (mail vote)
Art. 47 - Prop. A	– 248 – Dostál	– ed.c.
Rec. 47A - Prop. A	– 081 – Fuchs	– no (mail vote)
Rec. 47A - Prop. B	– 239 – Dostál & al.	– no
Rec. 47B - Prop. A	– 241 – Dostál & al.	– no
Rec. 47C - Prop. A	– 242 – Dostál & al.	– no (mail vote)
Art. 48 - Prop. A	– 310 – Rickett	– yes
Art. 48 - Prop. B	– 278 – Silva	– yes
Art. 48 - Prop. C	– 240 – Dostál & al.	– no (mail vote)
Art. 49 - Prop. A	– 090 – Bullock	– no
Rec. 49A - Prop. A	– 082 – Fuchs	– no
Rec. 49B - Prop. A	– 236 – Dostál & al.	– no
Rec. 49B - Prop. B	– 237 – Dostál & al.	– no
Art. 50 - Prop. A	– 091 – Bullock	– no
Rec. 50A - Prop. A	– 083 – Fuchs	– no [mail vote]

[the Example referred to the Editorial Committee]

Rec. 50A - Prop. B	– 291 – Morton	– ed.c.
Rec. 50B - Prop. A	– 234 – Dostál & al.	– no [mail vote]
Rec. 50C - Prop. A	– 084 – Fuchs	– no (mail vote)
Rec. 50D - Prop. A	– 019 – Donk	– yes
Rec. 50D - Prop. B	– 085 – Fuchs	– no (mail vote)
Rec. 50D - Prop. C	– 092 – Bullock	– no (mail vote)
Rec. 50D - Prop. D	– 235 – Dostál & al.	– no (mail vote)
Rec. 50Dbis - A	– 019 – Donk	– no	c.alg.: –, c.bry.: –
Rec. 50G - Prop. A	– 292 – Morton	– ed.c.
Rec. 50H - Prop. A	– 086 – Fuchs	– yes
Art. 51 - Prop. A	– 279 – Silva	– no [mail vote]
Art. 51 - Prop. B	– 293 – Morton	– ed.c.
Art. 51 - Prop. C	– 178 – Bullock	– ed.c.
Art. 52 - Prop. A	– 249 – Dostál	– ed.c.
Art. 52 - Prop. B	– 294 – Morton	– ed.c.
Rec. 52A - 319	– 319 – SMdF	– yes
Art. 53 - Prop. A	– 203 – Prokhanov	– ed.c.
Art. 55 - Prop. A	– 122 – Schulze & Buchheim	– ed.c.
Art. 55 - Prop. B	– 204 – Prokhanov	– ed.c.
Art. 55 - Prop. C	– 250 – Dostál	– ed.c.
Art. 55 - Prop. D	– 251 – Dostál	– ed.c.
Art. 55 - Prop. E	– 296 – Morton	– ed.c.
Art. 57 - Prop. A	– 297 – Morton	– ed.c.
Art. 57 - Prop. B	– 205 – Prokhanov	– ed.c.
Art. 58 - Prop. A	– 103 – Ames & al.	– yes	c.fos.: +

a replacement example was provided by the Committee
for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature:

     Platycarya Sieb. and Zucc. (1843),
          in place of Sequoia Endl. (1847), and
     Petrophiloides Bowerbank (1840),
          in place of Steinhauera Presl (1838).

Art. 59 - Prop. A

– 123 – Schulze & Buchheim

was referred to the Committee for Fungi and Lichens
which recommended:

a) After the word “Phycomycetes” the remainder of the
first sentence to be deleted and the following to be
inserted:

      “... the correct name of all states is one typified by
        the perfect state; but otherwise, a name refers only
        to the state represented by its type. The legitimacy
        of a name or epithet typified by the perfect state is
        not affected by the earlier publication of any name
        or epithet typified by another state of the same
        taxon.”

b) The third sentence, “The type specimen ... stage”,
to be deleted.

c) In the last sentence (par. 2), replace “of a perfect state”
by “of the name of a perfect state”.

Art. 59 - Prop. B	– 124 – Schulze & Buchheim	– yes	c.fun.: +
Art. 60 - Prop. A	– 206 – Prokhanov	– ed.c.
Art. 60 - Prop. B	– 227 – Dostál & al.	– no (mail vote)
Art. 61 - Prop. A	– 063 – Proskauer	– no (mail vote)
Art. 61 - Prop. B	– 275 – Silva	– no (mail vote)
Art. 62 - Prop. A	– 207 – Prokhanov	– ed.c.
Art. 62bis - Prop. A	– 010 – Rickett & Camp	– no
Art. 63 - Prop. A	– 034 – Fosberg	– ed.c.
Art. 63 - Prop. B	– 304 – Dandy & Ross	– no
Art. 64 - Prop. A	– 064 – Proskauer	– no (mail vote)
Art. 64 - Prop. B	– 280 – Silva	– no	c.alg.: –

the Committee for Algae instead proposed an addition
to the last paragraph of Art. 64 (based on the last part of
Principle I):

“In all other cases, the name of a plant must not be
rejected merely because it is the name of an animal.”

This was referred to the General Committee together
with Art. 45, Prop. B.

Art. 64 - Prop. C	– 192 – Ross	– yes
Art. 64 - Prop. D	– 172 – Ross	– yes
Art. 64 - Prop. E	– 200 – Deighton	– ed.c.
Art. 64 - Prop. F	– 208 – Prokhanov	– ed.c.
Art. 65 - Prop. A	– 008 – St. John	– no	sp.c.stab.: –
Art. 65 - Prop. B	– 045 – Rowley	– ed.c.
Art. 65 - Prop. C	– 209 – Prokhanov	– no
Art. 65 - Prop. D	– 314 – Mansfeld & Schulze	– no	sp.c.stab.: ?
Art. 66 - Prop. A	– 035 – Fosberg	– no	sp.c.stab.: –
Art. 66 - Prop. B	– 193 – Ross	– withdrawn
Art. 66 - Prop. C	– 315 – Mansfeld & Schulze	– no	sp.c.stab.: ?
Art. 67 - Prop. A	– 036 – Fosberg	– no
Art. 67 - Prop. B	– 046 – Rowley
Art. 67 - Prop. C	– 252 – Dostál

a suggestion (Faegri) was accepted to ask the Editorial
Committee to define the word “monstrosity” and make
a recommendation on its use to the next Congress.

[Art. 67]	– [sn-04] – Lewin	– ignored
Art. 68 - Prop. A	– 311 – Proskauer	– see Art. 5 - A
Art. 68 - Prop. B	– 149 – Holm	– withdrawn
Art. 68 - Prop. C	– 173 – Ross	– yes
Art. 69 - Prop. A	– 150 – Holm

was accepted as amended, as suggested by the Rapporteur,
the Note to read: “Illegitimate epithets must not be ...”.

Art. 69 - Prop. B	– 174 – Ross	– yes
Art. 70 - Prop. A	– 047 – Rowley	– no (mail vote)
Art. 70 - Prop. B	– 175 – Ross	– yes
Art. 71 - Prop. A	– 087 – Fuchs	– ed.c.
Art. 73 - Prop. A	– 014 – McClure	– ed.c.
Art. 73 - Prop. B	– 021 – Rickett	– yes
Art. 73 - Prop. B	– 253 – Dostál	– yes
Art. 73 - Prop. C	– 037 – Fosberg	– ed.c.
Art. 73 - Prop. D	– 088 – Fuchs	– no (mail vote)
Art. 73 - Prop. E	– 312 – Fosberg	– no (mail vote)
Art. 73 - Prop. F	– 298 – Morton	– ed.c.
Art. 73 - Prop. G	– 125 – Schulze & Buchheim	– no
Art. 73 - Prop. H	– 125 – Schulze & Buchheim	– no
Art. 73 - Prop. I	– 126 – Schulze & Buchheim	– ed.c.
Art. 73 - Prop. K	– 127 – Schulze & Buchheim	– ed.c.
Art. 73 - Prop. L	– 127 – Schulze & Buchheim	– ed.c.
Art. 73 - Prop. M	– 128 – Schulze & Buchheim	– ed.c.
Art. 73 - Prop. N	– 129 – Schulze & Buchheim	– ed.c.
Art. 73 - Prop. O	– 196 – Deighton	– ed.c.
Rec. 73C - Prop. A	– 130 – Schulze & Buchheim	– ed.c.
Rec. 73H - Prop. A	– 197 – Deighton	– yes	c.fun.: +
Rec. 73I - Prop. A	– 198 – Deighton	– no
Art. 74 - Prop. A	– 210 – Prokhanov	– ed.c.
Rec. 75A - Prop. A	– 211 – Prokhanov	– ed.c.
Rec. 75A - Prop. B	– 254 – Dostál	– ed.c.
Rec. 75A - Prop. C	– 299 – Morton	– ed.c.
Art. 75bis - Prop. A	– 194 – Bullock	– no

   A proposal from the floor (Ross) was accepted to insert in
   Div. III, Provision 2, Para. 11, after “rapporteur-général” the
   words “of the previous Congress” (to take care of a change
   of person holding the office).

   A proposal from the floor (McVaugh & Tryon) was (as
   suggested by Smith) referred to the next Congress, to modify
   Div. III, Provision 4(2):

     “(2) A final and binding vote at the Nomenclature Section
       of the International Congress. Modification of the Code
       shall require a majority consisting of at least 60 per cent
       of the votes cast by the Section.”

Art. H.1 - Prop. A

– 048 – Rowley

c.hyb.: +

was accepted as amended (the Committee for Cultivated
Plants, ‘for Nomenclature of Hybrids’), the new provision
to read:

   “An exception may be made for amphidiploids treated
     as species which may bear a separate epithet without
     the multiplication (×) sign, and are then subject to the
     same rules as species.”

Art. H.1 - Prop. B	– 300 – Morton	– yes	c.hyb.: +
Art. H.1 - Prop. C	– 131 – Schulze & Buchheim		c.hyb.: +

was accepted as amended (the Committee for Cultivated
Plants, ‘for Nomenclature of Hybrids’), the provision to
read:

   “The formula consists of the names or the specific
     epithets of the two parents connected by the
     multiplication (×) sign.”

Art. H.1 - Prop. D

– 132 – Schulze & Buchheim

c.hyb.: +

was accepted as amended (the Committee for Cultivated
Plants, ‘for Nomenclature of Hybrids’), the Example to
read:

“Salix × capreola = Salix aurita × S. caprea or
alternatively Salix aurita × caprea.”

Art. H.1 - Prop. E	– 133 – Schulze & Buchheim	– no	c.hyb.: –
Art. H.1 - Prop. F	– C. Cultivated Plants

(from the floor) was accepted, a new Note to be added:

   “Note 4. The order of the names or epithets in the
     formula may be either alphabetical (as in this code)
     or with the name of the female parent first when this
     is known. The male (♂) and female (♀) signs may
     be added if desired. The method used in any
     publication should be clearly stated.”

Art. H.2 - Prop. A	– 134 – Schulze & Buchheim	– yes	c.hyb.: +
Art. H.3 - Prop. A	– 301 – Morton	– yes	c.hyb.: +
Rec. H.5A - Prop. A	– 135 – Schulze & Buchheim	– yes	c.hyb.: +

Stafleu explained that due to a error by him, a proposal by
Cross on Appendix II had been omitted from the Synopsis.
He proposed to authorize the Palaeobotanical Committee
also to consider this proposal in its report. This motion
was accepted unanimously. In its report, this Committee
recommended, in accord with this proposal, to transfer
material from Appendix II to appropriate points in the body
of the Code, and to otherwise delete the Appendix.

App. II - Prop. A	– 139 – Schulze & Buchheim	– no	c.fos.: –
App. II - Prop. B	– 140 – Schulze & Buchheim	– no	c.fos.: –
App. II - Prop. C	– 212 – van der Hammen	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. PB.1 - Prop. A	– 052 – Arnold	– no	c.fos.: –

the Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature
recommended that PB.1 be inserted as a Note following
Art. 3. The first paragraph without modification; the rest
to be replaced by:

   “An organ genus is a genus assignable to a family.
     A form genus is a genus unassignable to a family, but
     may be referable to a higher taxon. Form genera are
     artificial in varying degree.”

Art. PB.1 - Prop. B	– 104 – Ames & al.	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. PB.1 - Prop. C	– 141 – Schulze & Buchheim	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. PB.2 - Prop. A	– 055 – Arnold	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. PB.2 - Prop. B	– 118 – Funkhouser	– no	c.fos.: –

As to Art. PB.2, the Committee for Palaeobotanical
Nomenclature recommended that it be deleted.

[Art. PB.1, PB.2]	– [sn-05] – Cross	– ignored
Art. PB.3 - Prop. A	– 099 – Cross & al.	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. PB.3 - Prop. B	– 105 – Ames & al.	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. PB.3 - Prop. C	– 112 – Traverse	– yes	c.fos.: +
[Art. PB.3]	– [sn-06] – Cross	– yes / ignored
[Art. PB.4]	– [sn-07] – Cross	– no	c.fos.: –
[Art. PB.4]	– [sn-08] – Cross	– no	c.fos.: –
[Art. PB.4]	– [sn-18] – Crambast	– yes	c.fos.: +
Rec. PB.4A - Prop. A	– 053 – Arnold	– no	c.fos.: –

the Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature
recommended instead that this be inserted as a Note under
Art. 10:

   “The whole specimen used during the establishment of
     a taxon of fossil plants should be considered the
     nomenclatural type. If the specimen is cut into pieces
     (sections of fossil wood, pieces of coal ball plants, etc.),
     all parts originally used in establishing the diagnosis
     should be clearly marked.”

Art. PB.5 - Prop. A

– 143 – Schulze & Buchheim

c.fos.: +

was accepted as amended by the Committee for
Palaeobotanical Nomenclature; this provision to read:

   “When diagnoses are altered or circumscriptions
     changed in taxa of fossil plants of specific or lower
     rank, the type ...”

[Art. PB.5]	– [sn-09] – Cross	– yes	c.fos.: +
[Art. PB.5]	– [sn-19] – Crambast	– withdrawn
[Art. PB.6]	– [sn-10] – Cross	– yes	c.fos.: +
Rec. PB.6A - Prop. A	– 106 - Ames & al.	– no	c.fos.: –
Rec. PB.6A - Prop. B	– 113 – Traverse	– no	c.fos.: –
Rec. PB.6A - Prop. C	– 144 – Schulze & Buchheim		c.fos.: +

was accepted as amended by the Committee for
Palaeobotanical Nomenclature, to read:

   “An author describing a new genus of fossil plants
     should indicate whether he regards it as an organ
     genus or a form genus.”

[Rec. PB.6A]	– [sn-11] – Cross	– yes	c.fos.: +
Rec. PB.6B - Prop. A	– 107 – Ames & al.	– yes	c.fos.: +
[Rec. PB.6B]	– [sn-12] – Cross	– ignored
[Rec. PB.6C]	– [sn-13] – Cross	– no	c.fos.: –

the Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature
instead recommended insertion following the Note
under Art. 3, with the wording:

   “Form genera should not be used as types on
     which families or taxa of higher rank are
     established.”

[Rec. PB.6C Note]

– [sn-14] – Cross

– no

c.fos.: –

the Note instead to be deleted.

Rec. PB.6D - Prop. A	– 114 – Traverse	– no	c.fos.: –
[Rec. PB.6D]	– [sn-15] – Cross	– yes	c.fos.: +
[Rec. PB.6E]	– [sn-16] – Cross	– no	c.fos.: –
Rec. PB.6F - Prop. A	– 108 – Ames & al.	– no	c.fos.: –
Rec. PB.6F - Prop. B	– 115 – Traverse	– yes	c.fos.: +
[Rec. PB.6F]	– [sn-17] – Cross	– ignored
Art. PB.7 - Prop. A	– 054 – Arnold	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. PB.7 - Prop. B	– 116 – Boureau	– withdrawn
Rec. PB.7A - Prop. A	– 055 – Arnold	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. PB.8 - Prop. A	– 056 – Arnold	– withdrawn

The Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature
recommended to insert a Recommendation under Art. 57:

      “Fossils uniting diagnostic features of diverse taxa may
        be assigned either to (1) one, thereby enlarging its
        circumscription, or (2) may be proposed as a new taxon
        having the amplified circumscription.”

Rec. PB.8A - Prop. A	– 057 – Arnold	– withdrawn
Art. PB.9 - Prop. A	– 100 – Cross & al.	– no	c.fos.: –
Art. PB.10 - Prop. A	– 313 – Potonié	– withdrawn

The Committee for Palaeobotanical Nomenclature rejected
an unpublished proposal by British palaeobotanists, which
would have added a new Article:

    “It is permissible to continue to use the name of a form
      genus for all species considered as belonging to the same
      form genus as its type species even if that species
      becomes referred also to an organ genus or to a natural
      genus.”

Instead, it recommended to insert, following the proposed
Note under Art. 3:

    “As in the case of pleomorphic fungi (see Art. 59), these
      provisions shall not be construed as preventing the use of
      names of form genera in works referring to such taxa.”

App. III - Prop. A	– 022 – De Wolf	– no [mail vote]
App. III - Prop. B	– 022 – De Wolf	– no (autom.)
App. III - Prop. C	– [sn-22] – Gen.Com.	– yes
App. III - Prop. D	– [sn-23] – Gen.Com.	– yes
App. III - Prop. E	– [sn-24] – Bullock [ ]	– yes
App. III - Prop. F	– [sn-25] – Rickett & Stafleu	– c.sperm.
App. III - Prop. G	– 255 – Dostál	– ed.c.
App. III - Prop. H	– 256 – Dostál	– c.fun.
App. III - Prop. I	– 257 – Dostál	– ed.c.
App. III - Prop. K	– 258 – Dostál	– ed.c.
App. III - Prop. L	– 261 – Dostál	– c.sperm.
App. III - Prop. M	– 262 – Dostál	– c.sperm.
App. III - Prop. N	– 138 – Schulze & Buchheim

the Paris Congress had instructed the permanent
Committees to report on the application of the
principles of priority and typification to names of taxa
above the rank of family. The inventory presented
(Stafleu) showed that a great majority of the members
of the Committees was opposed to this. Prop. N was
rejected. A proposal from the floor (Smith) was
accepted to delete “orders” from Art. 14. [ ]

App. III - Prop. O	– [sn-03] – [Gen.Com?]	– var.c.'s
App. IV - Prop. A	– 009 – St. John	– yes
App. IV - Prop. B	– 316 – Mansfeld & Schulze	– ed.c.
Gen.prop. - Prop. A	– 271 – Silva	– withdrawn
Gen.prop. - Prop. B	– 201 – Bullock	– yes
Gen.prop. - Prop. C	– 243 – Dostál	– ed.c.

   The Paris Congress had instructed the permanent Committees
   to take a position on living specimens as nomenclatural types.
   A proposal (Stafleu) was accepted to approve their reports
   and to instruct the Editorial Committee to insert a provision
   that for Spermatophyta, Pteridophyta, Bryophyta and Algae it
   was not possible to have a living specimen as a type, but that
   for Bacteria and Fungi the possibility should be left open.

Abbreviation used:

SMdF = Société Mycologique de France.

General notes

In this overview a “no [mail vote]” indicates that a proposal was
rejected after receiving more than 75% no-votes in the mail vote.
At the time, this was not officially part of the procedures adopted
by the Nomenclature Section, but this information is included here,
for the sake of clarity and uniformity. At Montreal, the procedure
was that proposals that had received more than 80% no-votes in
the mail vote were automatically rejected, but this applied only
from Art. 20 Prop. A onwards.

The official closing date for proposals was 1 September, 1958.
The President ruled that proposals which came in after December
1958 were out of order.

Many proposals were referred to the permanent Committee for
that particular group: the recommendations of these Committees
were to be reviewed by the Editorial Committee to ensure there
would be no effects on other groups.

Committees

Special Committees (to report to the next Congress) set up:

• Special Committee on Neotypes.
To it were referred:
- Art. 7 Prop. H (Prop. 155 by Bullock & Ross)
- Art. 10 Prop. A (Prop. 101 by Staplin).