CONGRESS ACTION, XIX IBC (2017)

Congres action on proposals-to-amend-the-Code at the XIX IBC,
the 2017, Shenzen Congress.  Based on (by permission of the
IAPT):

      Nicholas J. Turland, John H. Wiersema, Anna M. Monro,
             Yun-Fei Deng & Li Zhang,
     “XIX International Botanical Congress: Preliminary mail vote
      and report of Congress action on nomenclature proposals
      (in Taxon 66: 1234-1245. 2017).

Adjusted according to the proceedings (2020) by Heather L. Lindon,
Helen Hartley, Sandra Knapp, Anna M. Monro, Nicholas J. Turland,
in PhytoKeys 150.

Links mostly go to the relevant page of a PDF, a local copy
(copyright IAPT for the material from Taxon).

See also:

   •  conversion table
   •  list of proposals
 

         Synopsis    Proposal as submitted Congress action     Comm. advice
Gen. prop. - Prop. A  – 346 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Gen. prop. - Prop. B  – 347 – Hawksworth  –  no (mail vote)  
Gen. prop. - Prop. C  – 348 – Hawksworth  –  no (mail vote)  
Gen. prop. - Prop. D  – 349 – Hawksworth  –  no (mail vote)  
Gen. prop. - Prop. E  – 350 – Hawksworth  –  no (mail vote)  
Gen. prop. - Prop. F  – 351 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Gen. prop. - Prop. G  – 352 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Gen. prop. - Prop. H  – 353 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Gen. prop. - Prop. I   – 354 – Hawksworth  –  no  
Gen. prop. - Prop. J   – 010 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Gen. prop. - Prop. K  – 156 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no (mail vote)  
Gen. prop. - Prop. L  – 175 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no (mail vote)  
Preamble - Prop. A  – 230 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote) c.alg.:  –
Art. 4 - Prop. A  – 123 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 4 - Prop. B  – 124 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 4 - Prop. C  – 125 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 4 - Prop. D  – 126 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 4A - Prop. A  – 127 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 4A - Prop. B  – 128 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 5 - Prop. A  – 023 – Vázquez  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 5 - Prop. B  – 024 – Vázquez  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 6 - Prop. A  – 301 – Greuter    

                 was accepted as amended (as suggested by the Rapporteurs),
                 replacing  “material”  by  “text and illustrations”;  placement
                 of the new sentence (e.g., in Art. 6, as proposed, or in Art. 32,
                 as suggested by the Rapporteurs) was referred to the Editorial
                 Committee with instructions to ensure that there will be no
                 negative consequences.

Art. 6 - Prop. B  – 152 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 6 - Prop. C  – 153 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no  
Art. 6 - Prop. D  – 154 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 6 - Prop. E  – 289 – Sennikov & Calonje  –  no  
Art. 6 - Prop. F  – 149 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  ed.c.  
Art. 6 - Prop. G  – 001 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 6 - Prop. H  – 235 – Wiersema & al.  –  yes   [   ]  
Art. 6 - Prop. I   – 091 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 6 - Prop. J   – 303 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 6 - Prop. K  – 304 – Greuter  –  no  
Art. 6 - Prop. L  – 242 – Nakada  –  ed.c.  
Art. 6 - Prop. M  – 155 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no  
Art. 6 - Prop. N  – 297 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 6 - Prop. O  – 298 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 6 - Prop. P   – 300 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 6 - Prop. Q  – 302 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 7 - Prop. A  – 008 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 7 - Prop. B  – 291 – Sennikov & Calonje  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 7 - Prop. C  – 299 – Greuter  –  ed.c.  
Art. 7 - Prop. D  – 191 – Sennikov  –  yes  
Art. 7 - Prop. E  – 098 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 7 - Prop. F  – 096 – Sennikov  –  no  
Art. 7 - Prop. G  – 097 – Sennikov  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 7 - Prop. H  – 064 – Hawksworth  –  yes c.fun.:  +
Art. 7 - Prop. I   – 065 – Hawksworth  –  yes c.fun.:  +
Art. 7 - Prop. J   – 066 – Hawksworth  –  yes c.fun.:  +
Rec. 7A - Prop. A  – 194 – Gnanasekaran & al.  –  no  
Art. 8 - Prop. A  – 364 – Wiersema  –  yes  
Art. 8 - Prop. B  – 249 – Sennikov  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 8 - Prop. C  – 100 – Sennikov    

                was accepted as amended (Seregin, Paton), to replace
                “barcode numbers”  by  “specimen identifiers”.

Art. 8 - Prop. D  – 295 – Sennikov & Calonje  –  ed.c.  
Art. 8 - Prop. E  – 196 – Niederle  –  no  
Art. 8 - Prop. F  – 197 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 8 - Prop. G  – 248 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 8 - Prop. H  – 247 – Deng  –  ed.c.  
Art. 8 - Prop. I   – 365 – Gautier & al.  –  yes  

               [A comma between “single” and “original” was
                suggested (Alford)]

Art. 8 - Prop. J   – 307 – Husain & al.  –  no  
Art. 8 - Prop. K  – 305 – Husain & al.  –  no  
Art. 8 - Prop. L  – 250 – Sennikov  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 8 - Prop. M  – 294 – Sennikov & Calonje  –  ed.c.  
Art. 8 - Prop. N  – 251 – Sennikov    

                was withdrawn in favour of a set of three proposals
                from the floor, which were rejected.

Art. 8 - Prop. O  – 308 – Hawksworth & al.   c.fun.:  sp.c.

                was amended (Söderström) by deletion of the words 
                “In fungi”  and referred to the new Special Committee
                on DNA Sequences as Types, together with Rec. 8C
                Prop. A and Art. 9 Prop. A.

Rec. 8C - Prop. A  – 309 – Hawksworth & al.  –  sp.c. c.fun.:  sp.c.
Art. 9 - Prop. A  – 310 – Hawksworth & al.  –  sp.c. c.fun.:  sp.c.
Art. 9 - Prop. B  – 018 – Prado & Moran  –  yes  

               [An amendment (Sennikov) to retain the word
                “designated”  was rejected.]

Art. 9 - Prop. C  – 043 – Matos & al.  –  yes  

A proposal from the floor (McNeill) was accepted
to further amend Art. 9 Note 1 adding, after the new 
“(i.e. specimen or illustration)”:  “when preparing
the account of the new taxon”.

Art. 9 - Prop. D  – 293 – Sennikov & Calonje  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. E  – 029 – Liao & al.    

                was accepted as amended (as suggested by the
                Rapporteurs), converting the Note to a Rule and
                specifying that omissions of required information
                (e.g., under Art. 40.6 and 40.7) are not correctable
                (the Editorial Committee to formulate the wording).

Art. 9 - Prop. F  – 019 – Prado & Moran  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. G  – 036 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. H  – 366 – McNeill & al.  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. I   – 367 – McNeill & al.  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. J   – 035 – Sennikov    

                was accepted as amended (as suggested by the
                Rapporteurs), replacing  “other material”  by
                “illustration with analysis”  and adding a
                cross-reference to Art. 38.7 and 38.8 to clarify that
                an illustration with analysis can be equivalent to
                a validating description or diagnosis.

Art. 9 - Prop. K  – 044 – Clementi & Peruzzi  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 9 - Prop. L  – 190 – Sennikov  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 9 - Prop. M  – 356 – Hawksworth   c.fun.:  +

                was amended (as suggested by the Rapporteurs)
                replacing  “unless it shows, in the opinion of the
                typifying author(s),”  by  “unless the typifying
                authors include a statement that it shows”.
                    Both Prop. M and N were amended (De Lange)
                by deleting “of a fungus” and both, as amended, were
                referred to the new Special Committee on Typification.

Art. 9 - Prop. N  – 357 – Hawksworth  –  see Prop. M c.fun.:  –
Art. 9 - Prop. O  – 370 – McNeill    

                was accepted as amended (Applequist), inserting 
                “a duplicate of” before  “the type of the conserved name”, 
                with a suggestion (Barrie) to the Editorial Committee
                to incorporate the Note into Art. 9.4.

Art. 9 - Prop. P  – 198 – Singh  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. Q  – 199 – Husain & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. R  – 200 – Husain & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. S  – 201 – Husain & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. T  – 290 – Sennikov & Calonje    

                was accepted as amended (as suggested by the Rapporteurs),
                replacing  “is extant or has been in existence”  by  “exists”.

Art. 9 - Prop. U  – 063 – Hawksworth  –  sp.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. V  – 241 – Wiersema & al.  –  sp.c.  

               [An amendment (Sennikov) to raise the proposed Note
                to a Rule was not supported]

Art. 9 - Prop. W  – 032 – Jørgensen  –  ed.c.  

               [An amendment (Hawksworth) to make this a Voted
                Example was rejected]

Art. 9 - Prop. X  – 192 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. Y  – 020 – Prado & Moran  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. Z  – 253 – Sennikov  –  sp.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. AA  – 246 – Deng  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. BB  – 312 – Ferrer-Gallego & Crespo  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. CC  – 260 – Procków & Procków  –  no  
Art. 9 - Prop. DD  – 252 – Sennikov  –  sp.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. EE  – 254 – Sennikov  –  sp.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. FF  – 257 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. GG  – 045 – Ferrer-Gallego & al.  –  no  
Art. 9 - Prop. HH  – 259 – Procków & Procków  –  no  
Art. 9 - Prop. II   – 261 – Procków & Procków  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. JJ   – 255 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. KK  – 296 – Sennikov & Calonje  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. LL  – 086 – Bhattacharjee, A. & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. MM  – 313 – Wisnev  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 9 - Prop. NN  – 368 – McNeill & al.    

             was accepted as amended (Greuter), replacing 
             “otherwise”  by  “if none exists”.                                                               [  ]     [  ]

Art. 9 - Prop. OO  – 369 – McNeill & al.  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. PP  – 203 – Prado & Hirai  –  ed.c.   [  ]  
Art. 9 - Prop. QQ  – 046 – Prado & al.  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. RR  – 047 – Prado & al.  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. SS  – 202 – Band. & Bhat.  –  ed.c.  
Art. 9 - Prop. TT  – 204 – Procków & Procków  –  no  
Art. 9 - Prop. UU  – 205 – Procków & Procków  –  no  

A proposal from the floor (McNeill) was accepted to amend
Art. 9 Note 7 to add  “lost, destroyed, or”  before  “superseded”.

Art. 9 - Prop. VV  – 067 – Hawksworth  –  yes  
Art. 9 - Prop. WW  – 193 – Singh  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 9A - Prop. A  – 306 – Husain & al.  –  no  
Rec. 9A - Prop. B  – 206 – Husain & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 9A - Prop. C  – 258 – Sennikov  –  no  
Rec. 9B - Prop. A  – 314 – Wisnev  –  no  
Rec. 9B - Prop. B  – 101 – Band. & Bhat.  –  yes  
Rec. 9C - Prop. A  – 311 – Ferrer-Gallego & Crespo  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 9D - Prop. A  – 013 – Bandyopadhyay & al.  –  no  
Art. 10 - Prop. A  – 009 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 10 - Prop. B  – 371 – McNeill  –  yes  
Art. 10 - Prop. C  – 391 – Sp.C. mech. type sel.  –  yes  
Art. 10 - Prop. D  – 392 – Sp.C. mech. type sel.  –  yes  
Art. 10 - Prop. E  – 393 – Sp.C. mech. type sel.  –  yes  
Art. 10 - Prop. F  – 394 – Sp.C. mech. type sel.    

              was accepted as amended (Levin), the new provision
              to start:  “Unless the author[s] specifically state[s] that
              they are not following a mechanical method of type
              selection, the following criteria determine ...”.

Art. 10 - Prop. G  – 396 – Sp.C. mech. type sel.  –  ed.c. [  ] [  ] [  ]  
Rec. 10A - Prop. A  – 395 – Sp.C. mech. type sel.  –  yes  
Art. 11 - Prop. A  – 033 – Mazumdar    

              was accepted as amended (as suggested by the Rapporteurs),
              to incorporate the Note into Art. 11.4, and (Greuter) to add
              that, if there is no final epithet available, a replacement name
              or the name of a new taxon may be published (the Editorial
              Committee to formulate the wording).    [  ]

Art. 11 - Prop. B  – 315 – Head & al.  –  yes c.fos.:  +
Art. 11 - Prop. C  – 319 – Head & al.  –  ed.c. c.fos.:  +
Art. 11 - Prop. D  – 316 – Head & al.  –  ed.c. c.fos.:  +
Art. 11 - Prop. E  – 317 – Head & al.  –  ed.c. c.fos.:  +
Art. 11 - Prop. F  – 318 – Head & al.  –  ed.c. c.fos.:  +
Art. 13 - Prop. A  – 231 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote) c.alg.:  –
Art. 13 - Prop. B  – 038 – Sennikov  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 14 - Prop. A  – 102 – Barkworth & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 14 - Prop. B  – 103 – Barkworth & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 14 - Prop. C  – 234 – Wiersema & al.  –  yes  

A proposal from the floor (Wilson, McNeill, Mabberley,
Barrie & Funk) was accepted to add to the end of Art. 14.3:

14.3 [...] Application of conserved and rejected names of
  nothogenera is determined by a statement of parentage
  (Art. H.9.1).

Art. 14 - Prop. D  – 157 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 14 - Prop. E  – 158 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 14 - Prop. F  – 207 – Machado & dos Santos  –  no (mail vote) gen.c.:  ed.c.
Art. 14 - Prop. G  – 208 – Machado & dos Santos  –  no (mail vote) gen.c.:  ed.c.
Art. 14 - Prop. H  – 068 – Hawksworth  –  yes c.fun.:  +
Art. 14 - Prop. I   – 072 – Hawksworth  –  yes c.fun.:  +
Art. 14 - Prop. J   – 075 – Hawksworth  –  yes c.fun.:  + IAL: +
Art. 14 - Prop. K  – 073 – Hawksworth  –  yes c.fun.:  +
Art. 14 - Prop. L  – 372 – McNeill  –  yes  
Art. 14 - Prop. M  – 236 – Wiersema & al.    

              was accepted as amended (Marhold), inserting 
              “nomenclature”  before  “proposals database”  in
              the final clause of Note 4, adding the correct title
              of the database, and deleting  “at
              http://botany.si.edu/references/codes/props/index.cfm”.

Rec. 14A - Prop. A  – 074 – Hawksworth  –  yes c.fun.:  +
Art. 15 - Prop. A  – 358 – Hawksworth  –  no (mail vote) c.fun.:  –
Art. 16 - Prop. A  – 159 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 16 - Prop. B  – 243 – Nakada  –  ed.c.  
Art. 16 - Prop. C  – 049 – da Silva & Menezes  –  yes c.alg.:  +
Art. 18 - Prop. A  – 002 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 18 - Prop. B  – 003 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 18A - Prop. A  – 160 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no  
Art. 19 - Prop. A  – 262 – Wiersema & Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 19 - Prop. B  – 004 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 19 - Prop. C  – 005 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 20 - Prop. A  – 320 – Linda in Arcadia & Lücking  –  no  

             [An amendment (Sennikov), to delete Art 20.2 entirely,
              while raising Art. 20 Ex. 4 and Ex. 6 to become Voted
              Examples (Greuter) or to become a Rule (Sennikov)
              which could be incorporated into Art. 20.4 (as pointed
              out by Turland) was rejected, as was an amendment
              (May) to change the date to 31 December 2018.
                    Also rejected was a later proposal from the floor
              that would have deleted Art. 20.2 and added to Art. 20.4 :
              “(c)  Some words that have been widely used in the
                      pharmacopoeia or as descriptive morphological
                      terms: Balsamum, Bulbus, Cortex, Caulis, Flos,
                      Folium, Fructus, Herba, Lignum, Oleum, Radix,
                      Rhizoma, Spina, Semen, Lanceolatus, and Lobata.”]

Art. 20 - Prop. B  – 090 – C. fossils  –  yes c.fos.:  +
Art. 20 - Prop. C  – 161 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 21 - Prop. A  – 104 – Sennikov  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 21 - Prop. B  – 163 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 21 - Prop. C  – 162 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.   [  ]  
Art. 21 - Prop. D  – 164 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 21B - Prop. A  – 105 – Sennikov  –  no (autom.)  
Rec. 21B - Prop. B  – 106 – Sennikov  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 23 - Prop. A  – 107 – Sennikov  –  no  
Art. 23 - Prop. B  – 165 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no  
Art. 23 - Prop. C  – 166 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 23 - Prop. D  – 386 – Wiersema & Gandhi  –  yes  [  ]  [  ]  

             [An amendment (Gereau), to add “that epithets with
              transcribed Greek adjectival terminations were to
              remain Greek when transferred to another genus” was
              characterized as “a little overly prescriptive” and
              withdrawn]

Art. 23 - Prop. E  – 387 – Wiersema & Gandhi  –  ed.c.   [  ]  
Art. 23 - Prop. F  – 214 – Niederle  –  no  
Art. 23 - Prop. G  – 215 – Niederle  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 23 - Prop. H  – 216 – Niederle  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 23 - Prop. I   – 108 – Sennikov  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 23 - Prop. J   – 383 – McNeill & Greuter  –  yes   [  ]  
Art. 23 - Prop. K  – 384 – McNeill & Greuter  –  yes  
Rec. 23A - Prop. A  – 150 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  ed.c.  
Art. 24 - Prop. A  – 388 – Wiersema & Gandhi  –  ed.c.  
Art. 24 - Prop. B  – 321 – Greuter & al.  –  yes   [  ]   [  ]  
Art. 24 - Prop. C  – 167 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 28 - Prop. A  – 168 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no  
Art. 28 - Prop. B  – 169 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 29 - Prop. A  – 263 – Deng  –  no  
Rec. 29A - Prop. A  – 264 – Turland & Knapp  –  yes  
Art. 30 - Prop. A  – 041 – Sennikov  –  no  

             [was raised again from the floor, amended (Redhead),
              and then amended again (Redhead), to include 
              “on or after 1 January 1953”.  These amendments
              then withdrawn, and the original proposal rejected]

Art. 30 - Prop. B  – 322 – Kirschner & Thines  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 30 - Prop. C  – 323 – Kirschner & Thines  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 30 - Prop. D  – 265 – Turland & Knapp      

              was accepted as amended (Greuter), to insert  “and format”
              (or  “and layout”),  after  “content”. A proposal from the
              floor (Turland & Knapp) was accepted to delete the agreed-upon
              “and format”  (or  “and layout”).

Art. 30 - Prop. E  – 266 – Turland & Knapp  –  yes  
Art. 30 - Prop. F  – 325 – Kirschner & Thines  –  ed.c.  
Art. 30 - Prop. G  – 267 – Turland & Knapp  –  ed.c.   [  ]  
Art. 30 - Prop. H  – 324 – Kirschner & Thines  –  no  
Art. 30 - Prop. I   – 268 – Turland & Knapp    

              was accepted as amended (Saarela), inserting  “article,”
              after  “issue,”.

Art. 30 - Prop. J   – 040 – Sennikov  –  no  
Art. 30 - Prop. K  – 217 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 30 - Prop. L  – 039 – Sennikov  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 30A - Prop. A  – 269 – Turland & Knapp  –  yes  
Rec. 30A - Prop. B  – 270 – Turland & Knapp  –  yes  
Rec. 30A - Prop. C  – 219 – Williams & al.  –  yes  
Rec. 30A - Prop. D  – 170 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.   [   ]  

          [a suggestion was made (Hawksworth) to adopt 
           “taxonomic works”]

Rec. 30A - Prop. E  – 218 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 30A - Prop. F  – 011 – Bhattacharjee, B. & al.  –  no  
Rec. 31B - Prop. A  – 271 – Turland & Knapp    

           was accepted as amended (Greuter), to delete  “as part of
           the content”.

Rec. 31B - Prop. B  – 221 – Deng  –  no  
Rec. 31B - Prop. C  – 014 – Bhattacharjee, A. & al.  –  no  
Rec. 31B - Prop. D  – 326 – Kirschner & Thines  –  no  
Rec. 31B - Prop. E  – 222 – Deng  –  ed.c.  
Art. 32 - Prop. A  – 385 – Wiersema & Gandhi  –  yes  
Art. 32 - Prop. B  – 109 – Sennikov  –  yes   [  ]  
Art. 34 - Prop. A  – 359 – Hawksworth    

              was accepted as amended (McNeill), to replace the phrase
              “and any other nomenclatural acts associated with those
              names are ineffective”  by  “and no nomenclatural act
              within the work associated with any name in the specified
              ranks is effective”.

Art. 34 - Prop. B  – 209 – Machado & dos Santos  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 34 - Prop. C  – 238 – Wiersema & al.    

              was accepted as amended (Thiele), reinstating the deleted
              words  “is authorized”  and inserting  “and”  before
              “takes retroactive effect”.

Art. 36 - Prop. A  – 373 – McNeill  –  yes   [  ]  
Art. 36 - Prop. B  – 133 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  ed.c.  
Art. 36 - Prop. C  – 171 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no  
Art. 36 - Prop. D  – 327 – Mosyakin & McNeill  –  yes   [  ]  

             [An amendment (Greuter) to replace  “proposed”  in
              Art. 36.2 by  “used”  was accepted as friendly, but then
              unaccepted, and not put to a vote]

A proposal from the floor (Funk, Greuter, McNeill, Malecot
& Herendeen) to add  “if new”  in Art. 36.2 and to replace
“proposed”  by  “used”  was accepted as amended
(Applequist), to replace it by  “accepted”.

Art. 36 - Prop. E  – 050 – Sennikov & al.  –  no  
Art. 37 - Prop. A  – 129 – Nakada  –  no  
Art. 37 - Prop. B  – 130 – Nakada  –  no  
Art. 37 - Prop. C  – 355 – Hawksworth  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 37 - Prop. D  – 131 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 37 - Prop. E  – 132 – Nakada  –  ed.c.  
Art. 38 - Prop. A  – 172 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 38 - Prop. B  – 374 – McNeill  –  yes  

             [An amendment (Applequist), to substitute  “a validating
              description need not be diagnostic as long as the identical
              description is not used in the same work.”  was rejected]

Art. 38 - Prop. C  – 110 – Kambale & Yadav  –  ed.c.  
Art. 38 - Prop. D  – 239 – Wiersema & al.  –  yes  
Art. 38 - Prop. E  – 210 – Machado & dos Santos  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 38 - Prop. F  – 329 – Deng  –  no  
Art. 38 - Prop. G  – 330 – Deng  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 38 - Prop. H  – 223 – Wang  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 38 - Prop. I   – 225 – Wang  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 38 - Prop. J   – 224 – Wang  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 38 - Prop. K  – 037 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 38B - Prop. A  – 078 – Hawksworth  –  yes  
Rec. 38B - Prop. B  – 079 – Hawksworth  –  yes  
Art. 40 - Prop. A  – 195 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 40 - Prop. B  – 256 – Sennikov  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 40 - Prop. C  – 292 – Sennikov & Calonje  –  yes  
Art. 40 - Prop. D  – 099 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 40 - Prop. E  – 021 – Li & Guan  –  ed.c.  
Art. 40 - Prop. F  – 022 – Li & Guan  –  ed.c.  
Art. 40 - Prop. G  – 331 – Kirk & Yao    

              was raised again from the floor (Kirk), amended (Greuter,
              Hawksworth, Barrie) and accepted as a Recommendation,
              deleting the startdate.

Art. 40 - Prop. H  – 375 – McNeill  –  yes c.alg.:  +, c.fun.:  +

A proposal from the floor (Schori, Redhead, Malécot, Paton,
Wilson, Lindon, Groom, Kusber & Hartley) to add a sentence
and a Note to Art. 40.5, was referred to the Special Committee
on Typification:

40.5. [...] For microscopic algae and all fungi, it may be a
  specimen that consists of more than one gathering as long
  as they represent the same isolate from a single source or
  an isolate derived from a single sexual cross.

Note 1. Type designations for taxa other than fungi and microscopic
  algae that include citation of more than one gathering (such as a wild
  gathering and a cultivated gathering or multiple cultivated gatherings)
  are by definition separate gatherings and do not meet the provisions
  of Art. 8.1 and 8.2; the proposed names are not validly published.

Rec. 40A - Prop. A  – 332 – Kirk & Yao  –  withdrawn  
Rec. 40A - Prop. B  – 333 – Kirk & Yao  –  yes  
Rec. 40A - Prop. C  – 173 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.   [  ]  

              [It was suggested (Greuter) to use  “in the Latin alphabet”]

Rec. 40A - Prop. D  – 111 – Dutta & Manudev  –  no  
Rec. 40A - Prop. E  – 015 – Krishna & al.  –  yes  
Rec. 40A - Prop. F  – 012 – Bandyopadhyay & al.  –  no  
Art. 41 - Prop. A  – 112 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 41 - Prop. B  – 337 – da Silva & Menezes  –  ed.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. C  – 338 – da Silva & Menezes  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 41 - Prop. D  – 227 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 41 - Prop. E  – 113 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 41 - Prop. F  – 114 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 41 - Prop. G  – 226 – Pagare & Janarthanam  –  ed.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. H  – 334 – Greuter & al.  –  no  
Art. 41 - Prop. I   – 052 – Sennikov  –  no  
Art. 41 - Prop. J   – 055 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. K  – 053 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. L  – 054 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. M  – 056 – Sennikov  –  ed.c.  
Art. 41 - Prop. N  – 057 – Sennikov  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 41 - Prop. O  – 335 – Greuter & al.  –  no  
Art. 41 - Prop. P  – 115 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 41 - Prop. Q  – 025 – Sennikov & al.  –  no  
Art. 41 - Prop. R  – 272 – Paul  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 41 - Prop. S  – 273 – Paul  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 41 - Prop. T  – 274 – Paul  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 41 - Prop. U  – 275 – Paul  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 41 - Prop. V  – 116 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 41 - Prop. W  – 336 – Greuter & al.    

             was accepted as amended (Greuter), inserting  “later”
             before  “isonym”.

Art. 41 - Prop. X  – 376 – McNeill  –  yes  
Art. 41 - Prop. Y  – 389 – Sennikov  –  yes   [  ]   [  ]   [  ]  
Art. 41 - Prop. Z  – 117 – Niederle  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 41A - Prop. A  – 026 – Sennikov & al.  –  no  
Rec. 41A - Prop. B  – 220 – Williams & al.    

           was accepted as amended (Groom, Lindon), so that the
           first clause reads  “In the absence of established tradition,
           if publications are not paginated, […]”.    [  ]

Rec. 41B - Prop. A  – 027 – Sennikov & al.  –  no  
Ch.V.Art. n - Prop.A  – 397 – Smith & al.  –  sp.c.  
Art. 42 - Prop. A  – 340 – Kirk & Yao   c.fun.:  –

              was amended (May) to delete the last two sentences 
              (“When the identifier […]”)  and was then referred
              to the Editorial Committee.

Art. 42 - Prop. B  – 277 – Sp.C. registration   gen.c.:  +

              was accepted as amended (Hawksworth), to insert in
              Art. 42.0bis, after  “addressed to the General Committee”,
              “(excluding fungi)”.  It was suggested (Dorr) to allow
              “An interested institution” to be plural in Art. 42.0.

Art. 42 - Prop. C  – 278 – Sp.C. registration  –  yes gen.c.:  +
Art. 42 - Prop. D  – 279 – Sp.C. registration  –  no gen.c.:  +

             [An amendment (Applequist), to add a second sentence 
              “Any mechanism approved by the General Committee must
              be accessible to individuals from all nations and include
              a means of registering names without direct internet access”,
              was further amended (Paton), to eliminate  “must be
              accessible to individuals of all nations”, and accepted]

Art. 45 - Prop. A  – 174 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 45 - Prop. B  – 232 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote) c.alg.:  –
Art. 46 - Prop. A  – 377 – McNeill    

              was accepted as amended (Wilson), replacing  “when none”
              by  “unless one or more”.    [  ]

Art. 46 - Prop. B  – 134 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  no  
Art. 46 - Prop. C  – 135 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  no  
Art. 46 - Prop. D  – 051 – Sennikov & al.  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 46 - Prop. E  – 136 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  ed.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop. F  – 244 – Nakada  –  ed.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop. G  – 245 – Nakada  –  ed.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop. H  – 138 – Sennikov & Somlyay    

              was amended (as suggested by the Rapporteurs) and
              referred to the Editorial Committee on the understanding
              that the only change to Art. 46.3 would be deletion of 
              “, or a formal error”.    [  ]

Art. 46 - Prop. I   – 139 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 46 - Prop. J   – 378 – McNeill  –  yes  
Art. 46 - Prop. K  – 140 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  no  
Art. 46 - Prop. L  – 092 – Nakada & Nagamasu  –  yes  
Art. 46 - Prop. M  – 137 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  yes    [  ]    [  ]  
Art. 46 - Prop. N  – 142 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  no  
Art. 46 - Prop. O  – 145 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  ed.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop. P  – 143 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  ed.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop. Q  – 144 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  ed.c.  
Art. 46 - Prop. R  – 146 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 46 - Prop. S  – 141 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 46 - Prop. T  – 147 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  no  
Rec. 46A - Prop. A  – 028 – Sennikov  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 46A - Prop. B  – 031 – Drobnik  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 46A - Prop. C  – 118 – Danet & Berthold  –  no (autom.)  
Rec. 46A - Prop. D  – 119 – Danet & Berthold  –  no  
Rec. 46C - Prop. A  – 120 – Danet & Berthold  –  no  
Rec. 46C - Prop. B  – 121 – Danet & Berthold  –  no  
Rec. 46D - Prop. A  – 058 – Bandyopadhyay & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 46D - Prop. B  – 059 – Bandyopadhyay & al.  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 48 - Prop. A  – 151 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 50E - Prop. A  – 080 – Hawksworth   c.fun.:  –

           was accepted as amended (Greuter), to eliminate “nomen
           sanctum”, and (McNeill) to allow both ways to refer to
           sanctioned names.

Rec. 50E - Prop. B  – 081 – Hawksworth  –  ed.c.    [  ] c.fun.:  –
Art. 52 - Prop. A  – 341 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 52 - Prop. B  – 342 – Greuter    

              was accepted as amended (as suggested by the
              Rapporteurs), to convert the proposed Note to a Rule, 
              and to insert (McNeill “exact”  before  “diagnostic  
              phrase name“.  The Editorial Committee to ensure that
              the  “unambiguous reference”  may not be an indirect
              or cryptic reference.

Art. 52 - Prop. C  – 343 – Greuter  –  yes  
Art. 52 - Prop. D  – 006 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no  
Art. 52 - Prop. E  – 007 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 53 - Prop. A  – 287 – Sennikov & Calonje  –  no  
Art. 53 - Prop. B  – 288 – Sennikov & Calonje  –  no  
Art. 53 - Prop. C  – 240 – Wiersema & al.  –  yes  
Art. 53 - Prop. D  – 211 – Machado & dos Santos  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 53 - Prop. E  – 093 – Belyaeva & al.    

              was accepted as amended (as suggested by the
              Rapporteurs), restricting the alteration of Art. 53.6 to
              adding  “legitimate”  in  “two or more homonyms”  
              and adding a new Note after Art. 53.1:
                “Note n. Simultaneously published homonyms are
                  not illegitimate on account of their homonymy
                  unless an earlier homonym exists.

Art. 54 - Prop. A  – 082 – Hawksworth   c.alg.:  –, c.fun.:  +

              was raised again from the floor and amended
              (Redhead) to restrict this to fungi, and accepted so.

Art. 54 - Prop. B  – 360 – Hawksworth  –  no c.alg.:  +, c.fun.:  ±
Art. 54 - Prop. C  – 390 – McNeill & al.  –  yes    [  ]    [  ]  
Art. 54 - Prop. D  – 280 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote) c.alg.:  –, c.fun.:  ±
Art. 54 - Prop. E  – 281 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote) c.alg.:  –, c.fun.:  ±
Art. 54 - Prop. F  – 233 – Nakada  –  no (mail vote) c.alg.:  –

A proposal from the floor (McNeill) was accepted to add a
new clause (c), a footnote, and an Example to Art. 54.1:

(c) A name of a taxon treated as belonging to the algae
  or fungi but originally assigned to a group not covered
  by this Code and that is unavailable for use under the
  provisions of the other Code¹, usually because of
  homonymy, is illegitimate under this Code.

  [footnote] “1   Such names are termed ”objectively invalid”
  in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and
  “illegitimate” in the International Code of Nomenclature of
  Prokaryotes (formerly the International Code of Nomenclature
  of Bacteria).

Ex. 1. Cribrosphaerella Deflandre ex Gorka (in Acta Palaeontol.
  Polon. 2: 239, 260, 280. 5 Sep 1957) was published under the
  provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature for
  the Cretaceous coccolith algae, previously known as Cribrosphaera
  Arkhang. (in Mater. Geol. Rossii 25: 411. 1912), an objectively
  invalid (equivalent to illegitimate) name under that Code, being a
  later homonym of Cribrosphaera Popofsky (in Ergebn. Plankton-
  Exped. 3(L.f.ß): 22, 32, 63. 1906) a genus of Radiolaria.  Although
  Cribrosphaera Arkhang. is not a later homonym under this Code, it
  is illegitimate as it is not available for use according to the
  provisions of the Code under which it was published; consequently
  Cribrosphaerella is the correct name for the genus under both Codes.

A suggestion that the new clause (c) be incorporated into
Art. 54.1(b) could be considered by the Editorial Committee
(new text in bold):

(b) [...] is illegitimate if it (i) becomes [...] or (ii) is
  unavailable for use under the provisions of the other
  Code¹, usually because of homonymy.

Rec. 54A - Prop. A  – 083 – Hawksworth  –  no c.alg.:  –, c.fun.:  +

             [An amendment (Hawksworth), to limit this to “algal
              and plant taxa”  was further amended (Nakada) to 
              “new taxa other than fungi”]

Rec. 54A - Prop. B  – 361 – Hawksworth   c.alg.:  +, c.fun.:  ±

           was accepted as amended (Schori), deleting  “prior to
           1 January 2025”.

Art. 55 - Prop. A  – 176 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 55 - Prop. B  – 177 – van Rijckevorsel  –  yes  
Art. 55 - Prop. C  – 178 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 55 - Prop. D  – 282 – Deng  –  yes  
Art. 55 - Prop. E  – 283 – Deng  –  ed.c.    [  ]  
Art. 56 - Prop. A  – 379 – McNeill  –  yes  
Art. 56 - Prop. B  – 212 – Machado & dos Santos  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 56 - Prop. C  – 069 – Hawksworth  –  no c.fun.:  +
Art. 56 - Prop. D  – 076 – Hawksworth   c.fun.:  + IAL: +

              was referred to the Editorial Committee, which will
              presumably amend Art. 56.3 in parallel with Art. 14
              Prop. J (which had been accepted).

Art. 56 - Prop. E  – 213 – Machado & dos Santos  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 56 - Prop. F  – 070 – Hawksworth  –  no (autom.) c.fun.:  +
Art. 56 - Prop. G  – 237 – Wiersema & al.  –  yes    [  ]  
Rec. 56A - Prop. A  – 071 – Hawksworth  –  no (autom.) c.fun.:  +
Art. 57 - Prop. A  – 084 – Hawksworth  –  yes [  ] [  ] c.fun.:  +
Art. 57 - Prop. B  – 077 – Hawksworth  –  withdrawn c.fun.:  + IAL: +
Art. 58 - Prop. A  – 339 – da Silva & Menezes  –  ed.c.  
Art. 59 - Prop. A  – 085 – Hawksworth  –  sp.c. c.fun.:  sp.c.
Art. 60 - Prop. A  – 180 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no (mail vote)  
Art. 60 - Prop. B  – 344 – Greuter & Gandhi  –  yes    [  ]  
Art. 60 - Prop. C  – 345 – Greuter & Gandhi  –  yes [  ] [  ]  

             [It was pointed out (Garland) that there were no Latin
              diphthongs beginning with the letter i ]

Art. 60 - Prop. D  – 380 – McNeill  –  yes  
Art. 60 - Prop. E  – 181 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. F  – 087 – C. fossils  –  yes c.fos.:  +
Art. 60 - Prop. G  – 088 – C. fossils  –  yes c.fos.:  +
Art. 60 - Prop. H  – 089 – C. fossils  –  ed.c. c.fos.:  +
Art. 60 - Prop. I   – 182 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. J   – 183 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. K  – 284 – Hartley & al.    

              was amended (Greuter) to become a regular Example
              (and referred to the Editorial Committee).

Art. 60 - Prop. L  – 285 – Hartley & al.  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. M  – 381 – McNeill  –  yes  
Art. 60 - Prop. N  – 184 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. O  – 185 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Art. 60 - Prop. P  – 060 – Sennikov  –  no  
Art. 60 - Prop. Q  – 061 – Sennikov  –  no (autom.)  
Art. 60 - Prop. R  – 179 – van Rijckevorsel    

              was referred to the Editorial Committee with the
              understanding (Wilson) that something would actually
              be done.  [  ]

Rec. 60C - Prop. A  – 062 – Sennikov  –  no (autom.)  
Rec. 60C - Prop. B  – 382 – McNeill  –  yes  
Rec. 60E - Prop. A  – 186 – van Rijckevorsel  –  no (mail vote)  
Rec. 60G - Prop. A  – 017 – Drob. & Bacl.-Zbik.  –  ed.c.  
Rec. 60H - Prop. A  – 187 – van Rijckevorsel    

           was accepted as amended (as suggested by the
           Rapporteurs), retaining the current wording of Rec. 60H.1
           but inserting  “or replacement names”  after  “names of
           new taxa”.

Rec. 60H - Prop. B  – 016 – Drob. & Bacl.-Zbik.  –  no  
Div. III - Prop. A  – 276 – Sp.C. registration   gen.c.:  +

              was accepted as amended (Freire-Fierro, Cantrill,
              Watson, Turland) to read:
              “(8) Registration Committee, charged with assisting
                     the design and implementation of repositories
                     for new names and nomenclatural acts,
                     monitoring the functioning of existing repositories,
                     and advising the General Committee on relevant
                     matters.  The Committee has the power to elect
                     officers as desired, to fill vacancies, and to
                     establish temporary subcommittees in consultation
                     with the General Committee, and includes at least
                     5 members appointed by the Nomenclature Section
                     selected, in part, to ensure geographic balance, and
                     representatives nominated by:
                         (1) the other Permanent Nomenclature Committees,
                         (2) prospective or functioning repositories,
                         (3) the International Association for Plant Taxonomy,
                         (4) the International Organisation of Palaeobotany,
                         (5) the International Federation of Palynological Societies,
                         (6) the International Phycological Society,
                         (7) the International Mycological Association, and
                         (8) the International Association of Bryologists.

Div. III - Prop. B  – 286 – Sp.C. by-laws   gen.c.:  var.

              was accepted as amended, as follows:

              in paragraph 2.4 (McNeill), replace  “specialist committees”
                   by  “Permanent Nomenclature Committees”
              in paragraph 4.11 (Bureau of Nomenclature), to replace 
                  “must”  by  “should preferably”
              add a new clause (Thiele):
                 5.1(4)  “rejecting a singled-out recommendation of the
                        General Committee (see 5.4);”  [note: this new
                        clause could possibly be subsumed within new
                        clause 5.1(5), below]
              add a new clause (McNeill, Wilson):
                 5.1(5)  “rejecting one or more recommendations of the
                        General Committee on conservation or rejection of
                        names, suppression of works, or binding decisions.”
              move (Thiele) clause 5.2(5), to become clause 5.1(1bis)
              in clause 5.2(8) (McNeill), add  “not included in 5.1(4)”
                   at the end  [note: the addition of clause 5.1(5) possibly
                   makes clause 5.2(8) redundant]
              in paragraph 5.6 (Bureau of Nomenclature), delete  “Notes,”
              in paragraph 7.4,
                  - replace (Watson “who were present”  by  “who
                    should preferably have been present”  and
                  - replace (Watson “previous”  by  “relevant”
              in Rec. 7A,
                  - insert (Schori “and gender”  before  “balanced” and
                  - delete (General Committee) the second sentence
                    (“In the General Committee […]”)
              in paragraph 7.11 (Wilson, on behalf of the General
                   Committee), replace “after voting 3 times”  by 
                   “after voting at least twice”  and the subsequent
                   remainder (Greuter) by  “the proposal goes to
                   the General Committee without a recommendation
                   from the specialist committee”
              in paragraph 7.12 (Wilson, on behalf of the General
                  Committee, Turland),
                  - in the first sentence, after  “approve”  insert  “or
                    overturn”;
                  - in the second sentence, replace  “In this case”  by
                    “In either case”;  and
                  - replace the third sentence by
                     “If the required majority is not achieved after voting
                       at least twice, the General Committee is considered
                       to have recommended against the proposal or against
                       making a binding decision.  The General Committee
                       may also decide to refer the matter back to the
                       specialist committee for further consideration.

Div. III - Prop. C  – 362 – May & al.   gen.c.:  –, c.fun.:  +

              was accepted as amended (Wiltshire-Hawksworth):
                 “the Section instructs the Editorial Committee to bring
                  together all material relating only to fungi into a separate
                  section or chapter within the Code, and that this section
                  be subject to modification only by the International
                  Mycological Congresses operating as proposed by the
                  Special Subcommittee on the Governance of the Code
                  with respect to Fungi.”
              further amended (May) to include replacing in paragr. 8.1
                 “For proposals relating solely to names of organisms
                  treated as fungi”
              by
                 “For proposals relating to material in the chapter that
                  gathers together articles solely dealing with names
                  of organisms treated as fungi (but excluding any
                  other material)”.

Div. III - Prop. D  – 363 – May & al.   gen.c.:  –, c.fun.:  +

              was accepted as amended (May), inserting at the end of
              paragraph 7.new  “if they are not already members of
              the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi”.    [  ]

App. I - Prop. A  – 034 – Zhu    

                was accepted as amended (as suggested by the
                Rapporteurs),  “Move Appendix I into the main body
                of the Code.  Renumber App. II–VIII as App. I–VIII. 
                Editorially adjust the relevant cross-references
                throughout the Code.
                   There was a suggestion (May), to call it Chapter H.

A proposal form the floor (de Lange) was accepted to add
a new Note under Art. H.2.1:

Note 1. Because a species name is a binary combination
  (Art. 23.1) hybrid formulae are expressed in the following
  manner: Kunzea linearis (Kirk) de Lange × Kunzea robusta
  de Lange & Toelken or Kunzea linearis (Kirk) de Lange ×
  K. robusta de Lange & Toelken, not as Kunzea linearis (Kirk)
  de Lange × robusta de Lange & Toelken.

Art. H.5 - Prop. A  – 188 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  
Rec. H.5B - Prop. A  – 228 – Shang & Zhang  –  no  
Art. H.6 - Prop. A  – 122 – Coetzee  –  no  
Art. H.6 - Prop. B  – 229 – Greuter  –  yes [   ]
Glossary - Prop. A  – 328 – Mosyakin & McNeill  –  ed.c.  
Glossary - Prop. B  – 148 – Sennikov & Somlyay  –  ed.c.  
Glossary - Prop. C  – 030 – Zhu  –  ed.c.  
Glossary - Prop. D  – 094 – Belyaeva & al.  –  ed.c.  
Glossary - Prop. E  – 048 – Prado & al.  –  ed.c.  
Glossary - Prop. F  – 042 – Matos & al.  –  ed.c.  
Glossary - Prop. G  – 095 – Krishna & Bandyopadhyay  –  ed.c.  
Glossary - Prop. H  – 189 – van Rijckevorsel  –  ed.c.  

On the final day (Friday, 21 July):
 * there was room for proposals from the floor [Word doc;
    annotations by Recorder, in colour; rejected proposals
    greyed-out] (the successful ones included above),
 * based on a paper on virtual participation, a proposal (Fortunato,
    Freire-Fierro) was accepted to establish a Special Committee,
 * a presentation on the Appendices [Powerpoint] was made
    (Wiersema) and discussed.


Abreviations used

Band. & Bhat. = Bandyopadhyay & Bhattacharjee, A.
Drob. & Bacl.-Zbik. = Drobnik & Bacler-Zbikowska
IAL = Council of the International Association for Lichenology
Sp.C. by-laws = Special Committee on By-laws for the Nomenclature Section
Sp.C. mech. type sel.
 
= Special Committee on Publications
   Using a Largely Mechanical Method of Selection of Types
Sp.C. registration
 
= Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names
   (including fossils)

 
Committees

Special-purpose Committees (to report to the XX IBC) to be set up on:

Special Committee on Typification.  To it were referred Art. 9 Prop. M,
   N, U, V, Z, DD, and EE  (063 by Hawksworth, 241 by Wiersema & al.,
   252-254 by Sennikov, and 356-357 by Hawksworth, not in that order)
   and the proposal from the floor on Art. 40.5.

Special Committee on DNA Sequences as Types.  To it were referred
   Art. 8 Prop. O, Rec. 8C Prop. A and Art. 9 Prop. A  (308-310 by
   Hawksworth & al.)

Special Committee on “Lists of Available Names”.  To it was referred
   Chap. V. Art. n Prop. A  (397 by Smith & al.) (the Committee to have
   a mandate not necessarily restricted to names of vascular plants).

Special Committee on Pleomorphic Fungi (Art. 59).  To it was referred
   Art. 59 Prop. A  (085 by Hawksworth).

Special Committee on Virtual Participation in the Nomenclature Section

A proposal to establish a special committee on orthography was rejected.

 
 
 
 
 


2017 ©, IAPT. (Report on Congress action);
2017 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel (this page)
              all rights reserved