CONVERSION TABLE, III IBC (1910)
Conversion table for proposals to amend the
International Rules
of Botanical Nomenclature
(Vienna Rules) submitted to the
III IBC, the 1910, Brussels Congress.
Congress action based on
the
Proceedings.
Links go to several sources, mostly the Biodiversity Heritage
Library, but also to Cyberliber and local copies (copyright varies,
but in many cases has expired).
See also:
•
Congress action
•
list of proposals
The
Recueil
uses double pages to list the proposals,
that is, two
facing pages,
with the same page number, in four columns
(“Ie partie”, “IIe partie”, “IIIe partie”, “IVe partie”).
The Rapporteur divided proposals in four categories: those
aiming to amend the existing Rules,
those on non-vascular
cryptogams, those on fossils, and those on the list of conserved
names. The circular had stated that anything already discussed
at Vienna was out of order, and the first thing the Section did,
was accept
a motion by the Rapporteur to confirm that the
proposals in the first category were out of order, unless bringing
up new material.
At this time, the format “Art. B 11”
was used to number
proposals to amend the existing rules. For convenience sake,
this has been converted
here to the latter-day format
“Art. 11
Prop. B”. However, in the parts of the Recueil
on non-vascular
cryptogams and on fossils, (also in some of the proposals)
“Art.”
stands for
“a proposal concerning a Rule”, and in such cases the
format “Art. B 11” has been converted to
“Prop. 11B” (A, B, etc
indicating different proposals on the same topic).
Both the synopsis of proposals, the
Recueil synoptique,
and the
Proceedings, the
Compte rendu,
are entirely in French, which
means that all proposals were translated into French.
For practical
purposes,
quotations taken from the Proceedings are rendered here
in English, taken from the corresponding parts of the
Brussels
Rules.
Proposal
as submitted |
Recueil
synoptique |
Congress
action |
Notes
•
[I] A motion (Magnus & Maire)
was accepted to fix the starting
point for Myxomecetes at 1753.
•
[II.1] A motion (Lutz, Farlow, Atkinson & Giesenhagen) was
accepted to postpone making a decision on the starting point for
Bacteria.
• [II.2 for Schyzophyceae see IV, below]
• [III for Flagellatae see IV, below]
•
[IV]
A motion from the joint algologists was accepted:
“The
nomenclature of algae in general begins with Linnaeus,
Species Plantarum, ed. 1 (1753),
with the following exceptions:
1. Nostocaceae homocysteae, 1891–93 (Gomont,
Nostocaceae homocysteae);
2. Nostocaceae heterocysteae, 1886 (Bornet et Flahault,
Nostocaceae heterocysteae);
3. Desmidiaceae, 1848 (Ralfs, British Desmidiaceae);
4. Oedogoniaceae, 1900 (Hirn, Monographie und
Ikonographie der Oedogoniaceen).
5. The starting points for Diatomaceae, Flagellates, and
Schizophyceae (excl. Nostocaceae) are reserved for the 1915
Congress.”
•
[V] a motion (Zahlbruckner)
was accepted to fix the starting
point for lichens at 1753.
•
[VI]
a motion of the joint mycologists
was accepted to to fix
the starting point for fungi with Fries,
Systema mycologicum,
1821–32,
with the exception of the
Uredinales,
Ustilaginales
and Gasteromycetes,
which are to have a starting point of
1801 (Persoon, Synopsis methodica Fungorum).
•
[VII] on the proposal of the joint bryologists,
it was accepted
to fix the starting point for
Sphagnaceae and
Hepaticae at 1753,
and for the Muscineae, Hedwig,
Species Muscorum, 1801.
•
Crypt. - Prop. 5
(Saccardo, IX,
Atkinson, D & F):
it was pointed
out (Dixon)
that it would be useful to have a provision stating that
the Rules apply to names of fungi unless stated otherwise.
•
Crypt. - Prop. 6
(Kuntze, suppl., Art. 76,
Kuntze, maturus, § 16,
Proj. Moscow, Art. 71,
Saccardo, X, XI, XII,
Atkinson, E & G):
a motion by the combined mycologists was accepted,
for a
provision to read:
“Among Fungi
with a pleomorphic life-cycle the different
successive states of the same species (anamorphoses, status)
can bear only one generic and specific name (binomial) that
is the earliest which has been given, starting from Fries,
Systema, or Persoon, Synopsis,
to the state containing the
form which it has been agreed to call the perfect form,
provided that the name is otherwise in conformity with the
rules.
The perfect state is that which ends in the ascus stage
in the Ascomycetes, in the basidium in the Basidiomycetes,
in the teleutospore or its equivalent in the Uredinales, and
in the spore in the Ustilaginales.
Generic and specific names given to other states have
only a temporary value.
They cannot replace a generic
name already existing and applying to one or more species,
any one of which contains the “perfect” form.”
•
Crypt. - Prop. 8, 9
(Eriksson, 1:o),
Fischer & Magnus, n. 1 & 2,
Eriksson, 2:o)),
a motion by a group of mycologists was accepted:
“In
the case of parasites, especially parasitic fungi, authors
who do not give specific value to forms characterized from
a biological standpoint but scarcely or not at all from a
morphological standpoint, should distinguish within the
species special forms (forma specialis, f. sp.) characterized
by their adaptation to different hosts.
Special forms are
named preferably after the host species; if desired double
names may be used.”
•
Atkinson, Rec. III (Crypt. - Prop. 14)
was accepted as amended
(Atkinson), to apply to any new taxon.
•
A motion (Maire)
was referred to the Editorial Committee, to
have a recommendation to authors of new taxa of fleshy fungi
to preserve dried specimens.
•
the joint palaeobotanists proposed to replace
Nathorst, Art. E
(Foss. - Prop. 4)
by a new text,
to provide a double list.
•
Potonié, ad Art. 36 & 37 (Foss. - Prop. 12C)
was accepted as
amended, to require a diagnosis in Latin.
•
A motion (Prain)
was accepted, to have a Recommendation
to provide, beside the diagnosis in Latin, a detailed
description in French, English, German or Italian.
2015 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel
all rights reserved