CONGRESS ACTION, XVI IBC (1999)
Congres action on proposals-to-amend-the-Code
at the XVI IBC,
the 1999, St Louis Congress.
Based on (by permission of the IAPT):
Fred R. Barrie & Werner Greuter
“XVI
International Botanical Congress:
preliminary mail vote and
report of Congress action on nomenclature proposals”
(in Taxon 48: 771-784. 1999).
But updated here and there according
to the
proceedings,
by Werner
Greuter, John McNeill, David L. Hawksworth and Fred R. Barrie, in
Englera 20 (2000).
Links go to the relevant page of a PDF,
a local copy
(copyright IAPT,
but copyright BGBM for Englera).
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 |
| Gen. prop. - Prop. A | – 010 – Sp.C. electr. publ. | – yes | |
| Gen. prop. - Prop. B | – 188 – Hawksworth | – no | |
| Gen. prop. - Prop. C | – 189 – Hawksworth | – no | |
| Gen. prop. - Prop. D | – 190 – Hawksworth | – no | |
| Gen. prop. - Prop. E | – 191 – Hawksworth | – no (mail vote) | |
| Gen. prop. - Prop. F | – 192 – Hawksworth | – no | |
| Gen. prop. - Prop. G | – 193 – Hawksworth | – no (mail vote) | |
| Gen. prop. - Prop. H | – 194 – Hawksworth | – no (mail vote) | |
| Gen. prop. - Prop. I | – 195 – Hawksworth | ||
| Gen. prop. - Prop. J | – 196 – Hawksworth | ||
| Gen. prop. - Prop. K | – 197 – Hawksworth |
these three proposals were accepted as
amended (W.Anderson for
Prop. I, J;
Keil for Prop. K). The terms
“homotypic synonym”,
“heterotypic synonym”, and
“replacement name”
to be added
parenthetically after the current terms, “nomenclatural synonym”,
“taxonomic synonym”, and “avowed substitute”, respectively.
these two proposals were replaced by a compromise
(Skog, on
behalf of an ad hoc group of palaeobotanists in attendance),
which was accepted, to amend Art. 3.4 and add a Note to
Art. 3:
“3.4.
As in the case of certain pleomorphic fungi,
the provisions
of this
Code
authorise
the publication and use of names of
morphotaxa.”
“Note n.
For the purpose of this
Code, a morphotaxon is defined
as a fossil taxon based on a particular form
or structure, life
history stage, or preservational state.”
| Art. 3 - Prop. A | – 004 – Fensome & Skog | – yes | c.fos.: + | Art. 4 - Prop. A | – 177 – Trehane | – ed.c. |
| Art. 6 - Prop. A | – 037 – Zijlstra | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 6 - Prop. B | – 038 – Zijlstra | – no | |
| Art. 6 - Prop. C | – 150 – Greuter | – yes | |
| Art. 7 - Prop. A | – 045 – Zijlstra | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 7 - Prop. B | – 071 – Sp.C. lectotypif. | – yes | |
| Art. 8 - Prop. A | – 066 – Sp.C. lectotypif. | – yes |
was accepted as
amended (Compère, Greuter),
adding the phrase
“, disregarding admixtures” at the end of the second sentence.
| Art. 8 - Prop. B | – 068 – Sp.C. lectotypif. | – no | |
| Art. 8 - Prop. C | – 211a – Gams & al. | c.alg.: –, c.fun.: + |
was accepted, as
amended (the proposers, Greuter), to become a
Note following
Art. 8.2 –
the present Example to remain as a
“non-voted” Example:
“Note. n.
For fungi and algae, cultures,
if preserved in a
metabolically inactive state
(e.g. lyophilisation or
deep-freezing), are acceptable as types.”
| Art. 8 - Prop. D | – 084 – Forman & Brummitt |
was dealt with in two steps (as suggested by the Rapporteurs):
deletion of the phrase
“, or if such a name is without a type
specimen,”
[concerning subsequent type designations] was
accepted; deletion of the remaining provision
[concerning the
types of names of new taxa] was rejected.
| Art. 8 - Prop. E | – 048 – Traverse | – no (mail vote) | c.fos.: ? |
| Art. 8 - Prop. F | – 049 – Traverse | – withdrawn | c.fos.: ? |
| Art. 8 - Prop. G | – 040 – Fensome & al. | – yes | c.fos.: + |
| Art. 8 - Prop. H | – 041 – Fensome & al. | – yes | c.fos.: + |
A motion (Silva) to introduce the term “iconotype”
for an illustration
serving as type was withdrawn.
was accepted as amended,
as suggested by the Rapporteurs, to
incorporate the phrase “a single gathering but”
ahead of
“more
than one specimen”.
| Art. 9 - Prop. M | – 014 – Laferrière | – no | |
| Art. 9 - Prop. N | – 015 – Laferrière | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 10 - Prop. A | – 178 – Trehane | – sp.c. | |
| Art. 10 - Prop. B | – 079 – Sp.C. lectotypif. | – sp.c. | |
| Art. 11 - Prop. A | – 099a – Chaloner & al. | c.alg.: –, c.fos.: – |
Prop. A and
G
were replaced by a
compromise (Skog, on behalf of
an ad hoc group of palaeobotanists in attendance),
which was
accepted, to add a sentence at the end of
Art. 11.1
and to add a new
paragraph to Art. 11
(the two Examples of Prop. G being referred
to the Editorial Committee):
“[11.1. ...]
However, the use of separate names for the form-taxa
of fungi and for morphotaxa of fossil plants is allowed under
Art. 3.4 and 59.5.
“11.1bis.
Fossil taxa may be treated as morphotaxa
which for
nomenclatural purposes comprise only those parts, life-history
stages or preservational states represented
by the corresponding
nomenclatural types.
Names for morphotaxa, for purposes of
priority, compete only with names based on a fossil type
representing that same part, life history stage, or preservation
state.”
| Art. 11 - Prop. B | – 100 – Chaloner & al. | c.alg.: +, c.fos.: ? |
was accepted as
amended (Skog, on behalf
of an ad hoc group of
palaeobotanists in attendance;
supported by the Committee for
Algae),
to replace “algae” in Art. 11.7
by “diatoms” or
“Bacillariophyceae”.
[ ]
A motion from the floor (Reveal) was accepted,
to delete the present
footnote to Art. 14 Note 1
and instruct the Editorial Committee to
update and correct App. IIB, and any relevant Example,
accordingly.
| Art. 14 - Prop. B | – 034 – Reveal | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. C | – 052 – Isoviita | – no | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. D | – 085 – Mackinder & Lughadha | – no | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. E | – 018 – Reveal | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. F | – 129 – Zijlstra | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. G | – 130 – Zijlstra | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 15 - Prop. A | – 086 – C. NCU | – no | |
| Rec. 15A - Prop. A | – 087 – C. NCU | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 16 - Prop. A | – 019 – Reveal |
was accepted as
amended (Demoulin) by
deletion of the parenthesis,
“(“typeless names”)”, in clause
(b).
| Art. 16 - Prop. B | – 020 – Reveal | – yes | |
| Art. 16 - Prop. C | – 021 – Reveal | – yes | |
| Art. 16 - Prop. D | – 022 – Reveal | – yes | |
| Art. 16 - Prop. E | – 023 – Reveal |
was accepted, but to be implemented in conformity with the
Rapporteurs’ suggestion:
“in Art. 16.1(a), as newly worded by
Prop. A, to replace “adding a termination
denoting their rank to
the genitive singular stem of a generic name” by
“replacing the
termination
-aceae
in a legitimate name of an included family by
the termination
denoting their rank” [...]”.
A motion from the floor (Greuter) was accepted,
to split both
Art. 21.1
and
24.1
into two sentences
by placing a period after “epithet” and
continuing:
“A connecting term [...] is used to denote the rank.”
Motions from the floor (Gams) were accepted,
to add two new
Recommendations to Art. 30:
“30Abis.n.
Authors are encouraged to publish new names and new
combinations in periodicals that regularly publish taxonomic articles,
or to send a copy of their work to the appropriate indexing centre(s).”
“30Ater.n.
Authors and editors are encouraged to list nomenclatural
novelties in the summary, abstract or table of contents of the
publication.”
| Art. 32 - Prop. A | – 088 – Borgen & al. | – withdrawn |
A motion from the floor (Turland) was accepted,
to remove all
registration provisions
introduced by the XV International Botanical
Congress
into the Code, to name, Art.
32.1 – last sentence,
32.2, and
45.2.
| Art. 32 - Prop. B | – 089 – Borgen & al. | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. C | – 090 – Borgen & al. | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. D | – 091 – Borgen & al. | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. E | – 092 – Borgen & al. | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. F | – 093 – Borgen & al. | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. G | – 094 – Borgen & al. | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. H | – 013 – Sp.C. electr. publ. | – no (mail vote) | |
| Rec. 32C - Prop. A | – 155 – Greuter |
was accepted in the form as suggested by the Rapporteurs, the
Recommendation to be rephrased.
was referred to the Editorial Committee with
the understanding
(Greuter)
that the last two sentences of the proposed Example be
transformed into a
Note defining the term “isonym”.
| Art. 34 - Prop. A | – 103 – Zijlstra | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 35 - Prop. A | – 030 – Reveal | – no (mail vote) |
was replaced by the proposer by the following,
accepted as a new
provision
[to be followed by three Examples, two as originally
proposed, one additional]:
“35.2bis.
For suprageneric names published on or after
1 January 1908 –
the use of one of the terminations specified by
Art. 17-19 and Rec. 16A is accepted as an indication of the
corresponding rank,
unless this
(a) would conflict with the
explicitly designated rank of the taxon
(which takes precedence)
would result or
(b) in a rank sequence contrary to Art. 5 (in
which case Art. 33.5 applies).”
A suggestion for rewording Art. 35.2 (Reveal) was
referred to the
Editorial Committee.
| Art. 35 - Prop. B | – 055 – Isoviita | – no | c.alg.: + |
| Art. 35 - Prop. C | – 056 – Isoviita | – no | c.alg.: + |
| Art. 35 - Prop. D | – 187 – Trehane | – sp.c. | |
| Art. 35 - Prop. E | – 029 – Reveal | – sp.c. | |
| Art. 36 - Prop. A | – 006 – Craven | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 36 - Prop. B | – 007 – Craven | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 36 - Prop. C | – 008 – Craven | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 37 - Prop. A | – 211b – Gams & al. | – ed.c. | c.alg.: –, c.fun.: + |
| Art. 37 - Prop. B | – 080 – Sp.C. lectotypif. |
was accepted as
amended (Greuter),
to not replace “specimen” by
“gathering”,
but rather to add “gathering”.
| Art. 37 - Prop. C | – 081 – Sp.C. lectotypif. | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 41 - Prop. A | – 031 – Reveal | – sp.c. | |
| Art. 41 - Prop. B | – 032 – Reveal | – sp.c. | |
| Art. 41 - Prop. C | – 179b – Trehane | – sp.c. | |
| Art. 43 - Prop. A | – 179c – Trehane | – sp.c. | |
| Art. 46 - Prop. A | – 165 – Trehane | – yes | |
| Art. 46 - Prop. B | – 203 – Hawksworth | – no | |
| Art. 46 - Prop. C | – 204 – Hawksworth | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 46 - Prop. D | – 065 – Yatskievych & Wagner |
was accepted as
amended (Greuter), the proposed new provision to
become a
Note,
it being understood that the term “authorship”
when first used concerns the publication
but the second time, the
included new names.
| Rec. 46A - Prop. A | – 156 – Greuter | – yes | |
| Rec. 46E - Prop. A | – 205 – Hawksworth | – no | |
| Art. 49 - Prop. A | – 033 – Reveal | – sp.c. | |
| Rec. 50E - Prop. A | – 157 – Greuter | – yes | |
| Rec. 50E - Prop. B | – 213 – Kuyper & al. | – yes | c.fun.: + |
| Art. 52 - Prop. A | – 158 – Greuter | – yes | |
| Art. 52 - Prop. B | – 039 – Zijlstra | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 53 - Prop. A | – 159 – Greuter | – yes | |
| Art. 53 - Prop. B | – 001 – Green & al. | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 53 - Prop. C | – 002 – Green & al. | – no (mail vote) |
A motion from the floor (Gandhi) was accepted
to add a clarification
to
Art. 53.6 –
perhaps by means of an explanatory Note,
to the effect
that
“The
renamed homonym remains legitimate and has priority over
the
nomen novum at the same rank
if a transfer to another genus is
made.”
A motion from the floor (Zijlstra) was accepted,
to delete the word
“generic” from Art. 60 Note 1.
was accepted as amended, as per the Rapporteurs’ suggestion to
editorially improve the Recommendation rather than delete it.
| Rec. 60G - Prop. A | – 120 – Sp.C. orthography | – ed.c. | |
| Rec. 60H - Prop. A | – 173 – Trehane | – yes | |
| Rec. 60I - Prop. A | – 174 – Trehane | – yes |
A motion from the floor (Nicolson) was accepted
to add
“-glochin”
in Art. 62.2 to the feminine word elements listed
under clause (b);
and also one (Compère, for the
Committee for Algae) to add
“-phykos (-phycos, -phycus)”
in Art. 62.2 to the masculine word
elements listed as exceptions under clause (c).
| Div. III - Prop. A | – Prop. 210 – Hawksworth |
was accepted as
amended (Stuessy):
not, as proposed, a new
Permanent Committee to be listed in Div. III.2, but
a Special
Committee (to report to the XVII IBC).
| App. I - Prop. A | – 009 – Craven | – no (mail vote) | |
| App. I - Prop. B | – 162 – Greuter | – yes |
A motion from the floor (Trehane)
was accepted, to delete
Art. H.3.3
and
Note 2.
Committees
Special Committees (to report to the XVII IBC) to be set up:
(1)
Special Committee on Electronic Publishing.
(2) Special Committee on Early
[pre-Cambridge-Congress] Generic
Typifications.
(3)
Special Committee on Suprageneric Names.
[ ]
To it were referred:
-
Art. 16 Prop. F-J,
-
Art. 33 Prop. D,
-
Art. 35 Prop. E,
-
Art. 41 Prop. A, B,
-
Art. 49 Prop. A
(24-29, 31-33, 101 by Reveal, not in that order)
(4) Special Committee on Effective Publication
[to consider theses in
particular].
To it was referred:
-
Art. 30 Prop. D
(64 by Farjon)
(5) Special Intercode Committee ICBN/ICNCP
[to co-ordinate and
harmonise the provisions on the nomenclature of hybrids].
To it were referred:
-
Pre. 8 Prop. B,
-
Art. 10 Prop. A,
-
Art. 20 Prop. C,
-
Sect. 5bis Prop. A-D,
-
Art. 28 Prop. A,
-
Art. 35 Prop. D,
-
Art. 41 Prop. C,
-
Art. 43 Prop. A
(176, 178-184, 187 by Trehane, not in that order)
(6) Special Liaison Committee with other Nomenclatural Codes.
To it was referred:
-
Div. III Prop. A
(210 by Hawksworth).
(7) Special Committee to review Division III of the Code
[particularly
the voting procedures].
See also:
Fred R. Barrie & Dan H. Nicolson
“Announcement:
Special
Nomenclature Committees” (in Taxon 50: 893-896. 2001)
1999 ©, IAPT
(Report on Congress action);
2014 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel (this page)
all rights reserved