CONVERSION TABLE, XIV IBC (1987)
Table for the conversion of proposals-to-amend-the-Code
submitted to
XIV IBC, the 1987, Berlin Congress: proposals as submitted
(published
in Taxon) to proposals as treated at the Congress.
Congress action (by
permission of the IAPT) based on:
J. McNeill,
“XIII
International Botanical Congress: mail vote and final
Congress action on nomenclatural proposals”
(in Taxon 36: 858-868.
1987).
But updated here and there according to the
proceedings,
by Werner
Greuter, John McNeill and Dan H. Nicolson, in
Englera 9 (1989).
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:
•
Congress action
•
list of proposals
Committees
Special committees (to report to the XV IBC) to be set up:
•
Special Committee on Binary Combinations:
to study Art. 23 in detail with
particular reference to multinomials.
To it was referred (after having been
rejected):
Prop. 93 by Friis & Jeffrey (Art. 23 Prop. A),
also, the
amendment by Adolphi to Art. 73 Prop. A.
•
Special Committee on Bibliographic Errors:
on the effect of bibliographic
errors in citation on valid publication.
To it were referred (after having been
rejected):
Prop. 117-121 by Chapman (Art. 33 Prop. L-O, R) and
Prop. 251A-251B
by Taylor & Brummitt (Art. 33 Prop. P-Q).
•
Special Committee on the use of “in” and “ex”
in the citation of the names
of authors.
To it was referred (after having been rejected):
Prop. 207 by Yeo (Rec. 46E Prop. C).
• Special Committee on Registration.
Prop. 216 by the Special Committee on Registration
(Div. III Prop. A) was
accepted as amended to read:
“A Special Committee on Registration be set
up to report to the XV IBC.”
Prop. 218 by the Special Committee on Registration
(Gen. Prop. Prop. D)
was accepted with the first line amended
(McNeill, Morin) to read:
“That the Special Committee on Registration
be given a mandate to
determine the desirability and feasibility,
and, if appropriate, to negotiate
and test the structures, procedures and mechanisms, including finance,
required for the implementation of a system for the registration of new
plant names.”
To it were referred (after having been rejected):
Prop. 214-215, 217, 219
by the Special Committee on Registration
(Art. 6 Prop. A, Art. 32 Prop. A, Gen. Prop. Prop. C, E),
Prop. 225 by Hnatiuk & Chapman (Gen. Prop. Prop. F),
Prop. 227A by Brummitt & al. (Gen. Prop. Prop. A),
Prop. 229 by Hnatiuk & West (Art. 29 Prop. D).
Also, the withdrawn
Prop. 226 by Brummitt & al. (Art. 29 Prop. C).
• Special Committee on Lectotypification with three subcommittees:
-
Subcommittee on Lectotypification:
to review all proposals on
lectotypification not accepted at this Congress,
including
a proposal to
produce a list of types of Linnaean generic names.
To it were referred
(after having been rejected):
Prop. 287 by Henderson (T.4 Prop. A),
Prop. 288-290 by Zijlstra (Art. 8 Prop. O-Q),
Prop. 291A-291B, 293-294, 296-302, 304, 306-308
by the Special
Committee on Lectotypification / McNeill
(Art. 8 Prop. A-B, D-
E, G-M, Art. 9 Prop. B, D-F),
Prop. 319 by Pedley (Art. 9 Prop. A).
Also, part of
Prop. 232 by Voss (Art. 8 Prop. N).
-
Subcommittee on Retroactivity of
Lectotypifications and Illegitimacy:
as per
Prop. 303, by the Special Committee on Lectotypification
(Art. 63
Prop. A).
To it were referred (after having been rejected):
Prop. 244-245 by Zijlstra
(Art. 7 Prop. G, Art. 63 Prop. D)
as well as
a replacement proposal for each submitted
by the proposer from
the floor,
Prop. 246 by Taylor & Brummitt (Art. 7 Prop. C).
-
Subcommittee on Lectotypification of Linnaean Generic Names:
proposed by W. T. Stearn
in connection with discussion of
Prop. 291B by
the Special Committee on Lectotypification (Art. 8 Prop. B).
See also Dan H. Nicolson:
“Announcement:
Special Nomenclature
Committees” (in Taxon 37: 442-444. 1988).
The Section declined to set up a Special Committee on:
•
living types (proposed by Hawksworth,
following the rejection of
Prop. 92 (Art. 9 Prop. G)).
• mandatory correction of spelling (proposed by Hniatuk).
Notes on Congress actions:
•
Prop. 8 by Parkinson (App. II Prop. A)
was accepted as
amended (Nicolson)
(Nicolson),
to apply only to groups other than Spermatophyta and to be
permissive, not mandatory.
•
Prop. 88 by Kanis (Gen. Prop. Prop. H)
was accepted as
amended
(McNeill):
“Publication
of the principal text of the Code in other languages
be
sponsored and the General Committee be asked to declare the
conditions under which such translations of the Code be authorized.”
•
Prop. 89A-89C by Yeo
(Art. H.5 Prop. A & Art. H.11 Prop. B-C):
A replacement proposal was submitted from the floor (Yeo) and
referred to
the Editorial Committee in association with the Committee for Hybrids.
•
Prop. 108 by Chapman Brummitt (Art. 32 Prop. D) was
amended (Greuter)
so that “Ex. 1”
was to be a “voted example” of Art. 32.1(c);
the text was
rejected and the other examples
referred to the Editorial Committee.
•
Prop. 144 by Chapman (Art. 37 Prop. G)
was accepted as amended on the
suggestion of the Rapporteurs to restrict its application to types of names
of taxa at and below the rank of species.
•
Prop. 153 by Subcommittee C of the Committee for Fungi and Lichens
(Art. 13 Prop. C) was
referred to the Editorial Committee, noting that,
with
the rejection of
Prop. 154 by Gams (Art. 14 Prop. E),
para. n, the sentence
beginning “treated as if conserved against ...”
must be retained.
•
Prop. 154 by Gams (Art. 14 Prop. E):
the three paragraphs proposed for
addition to Art. 14 were voted on separately:
-
para. n was rejected;
-
para. o was accepted;
-
para. p was accepted.
Subsequently, a clarifying wording of para. p
(presented by McNeill, and
elucidated by Gams)
was referred to the Editorial Committee:
“When
two homonyms are sanctioned, Arts. 64 and 72 Note 1 apply to
the later of them”
•
Prop. 155B by Gams (Art. 14 Prop. G)
was accepted as amended (Greuter)
to extend the effect of the provision to all conserved names
(i.e. including
sanctioned names).
•
Prop. 173 by the Special Committee for Orthography
(Art. 18 Prop. C)
was
accepted as amended (Demoulin) to include not only
Art. 18 and
19, but
also
Art. 17.
•
Prop. 183 by the Special Committee on Orthography
(Art. 73 Prop. A): An
amendment (Adolphi) to add the words,
“An apostrophe or full stop in the original publication should not be
retained”
was rejected and referred to the
Special Committee on Binary Combinations.
•
Prop. 190 by the Special Committee on Orthography
(Art. 73 Prop. D) was
accepted as
amended by the proposers:
“Other letters
appearing in scientific names such as the “long-s” as in
racemoſa, or ligatures such as the German ß
(“double-s”) as in
bloßfeldiana are to be transcribed
(racemosa,
blossfeldiana).”
•
Prop. 221 by Greuter & al. (Art. 69 Prop. B):
there were several attempts to
amend this (Korf, Fosberg),
but these were rejected. The proposal itself was
also rejected, on a card vote (59.7%).
In response to a request from the floor,
the Section agreed to a second card vote
which confirmed the rejection
(58.3%).
•
Prop. 222 by Greuter & al. (Art. 69 Prop. C)
was accepted as
amended
(Greuter) with the following addition at the beginning:
“A name of a genus
or species that has been widely and persistently used
for a taxon or taxa not including its type and would be the correct name
for another taxon, may also be conserved or rejected under Art. 14.1(b).”
•
Prop. 223 by Greuter & al. (Art. 69 Prop. D)
was accepted as
amended by
the proposers to read:
“Names
of genera and species rejected,
or recommended for rejection,
under Art. 69 prior to the Berlin Congress
may be reconsidered by
relevant committees,
which may recommend conservation of that name
which will best serve stability,
such names to be listed as an Appendix
in the Code.”
•
Prop. 232 by Voss (Art. 8 Prop. N):
the addition of the phrase in Art. 8.1(c)
beginning
“and another element is available ...”
was rejected and referred
to the
Special Committee on Lectotypification,
but the other revisions to the
present text
were referred to the Editorial Committee.
•
Prop. 234 by Voss (Art. 17 Prop. B)
was accepted, and
a similar change to
Rec. 16A.4 was also accepted.
•
Prop. 276 by Henderson (Art. 7 Prop. B):
the first addition to Art. 7.4 was
referred to the Editorial Committee; the second addition rejected.
•
Prop. 310 by the Special Committee on Lectotypification
(T.1 Prop. A)
was
accepted as
amended (McNeill) to exclude the new material in Art. 7.5,
Note 2.
•
Prop. 328 and 329 by McNeill (Art. 69 Prop. J and K)
were withdrawn and
replaced by a proposal that was accepted as a new Recommendation:
“A name
that has been widely and persistently
used for a taxon or taxa not
including its type should not be used
in a sense that conflicts with current
usage unless and until a proposal
to dispose of it under Art. 69 has been
submitted and rejected.”
Motions from the floor:
•
by Thomas (after the rejection of
Prop. 258 by Thomas & Raven, Art. 3
Prop. A), rejected: a proposal
to allow both
“phylum” and
“division” for
the same rank (as alternates).
•
by Demoulin (prior to dealing with
Prop. 164A by Korf, Art. 7 Prop. H),
accepted, to add at the end of
Art. 7.11:
“Automatic
typification does not
apply to sanctioned names.”
•
by D’Arcy, rejected,
to add to Art. 29 a recommendation to send publications
to indexing centres.
• by Hniatuk, rejected, to reduce Art. 73.1 to its first half.
•
by Veldkamp, Nicolson & Chaloner, not decided on,
several proposals on
regulating proposals-to-amend-the-Code.
1987 ©, IAPT
(Report on Congress action);
2014 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel (this page)
all rights reserved