CONVERSION TABLE, XVIII IBC (2011)
Table for the conversion of proposals-to-amend-the-Code
submitted to the
XVIII IBC, the 2011, Melbourne Congress: proposals as submitted
(published
in Taxon) to proposals as treated at the Congress.
Congress action based on (by
permission of the IAPT):
John McNeill, Nicholas J. Turland, Anna M. Monro &
Brendan J. Lepschi,
“XVIII
International Botanical Congress:
Preliminary mail vote and report of
Congress action on nomenclature proposals” (in
Taxon 60: 1507-1520. 2011).
Adjusted according to the
proceedings (2014) by Christina Flann, Nicholas J.
Turland & Anna M. Monro, in
PhytoKeys 41.
Links mostly go to the relevant page of a PDF,
a local copy
(copyright IAPT for
the material from Taxon),
but some go to the relevant website.
See also:
•
Congress action
•
list of proposals
Committees
Special Committees (to report to the XIX IBC) to be set up:
•
Special Committee on Publications Using a
Largely Mechanical Method of
Selection of Types (Art. 10.5(b)) (especially under the
American Code).
[ ]
This Committee to develop a list of works
that are deemed to have followed the
American Code (Arthur & al. in
Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 34: 167-178. 1907; and
its precursor,
id. 31: 249-290. 1904),
in which the method of type selection is
“considered to be largely mechanical”.
To it was referred
Prop. 317 by Gandhi & Reveal
(Art. 10 Prop. B).
•
Special Committee on By-laws for the Nomenclature Section.
[ ]
To it were referred
Prop. 199, 200
& 202 by Landrum
(Div. III Prop. B, C & E),
plus a motion from the floor
to have the Nomenclatural Section on the www.
-
This Committee to have a
subcommittee on governance of the Code
with
respect to fungi;
to it were referred
Prop. 18-20 by Hawksworth & al.
(Div. III Prop. F-H).
• Special Committee on Institutional Votes. [ ]
• Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names (including fossils).
•
on harmonization of nomenclature of Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria
[re-established].
To it was referred
Prop. 165 by Silva (Art. 13 Prop. B).
A motion to establish a committee on the
BioCode was declined.
Also, it was
resolved to change the name of the
Committee for
Bryophyta to the
Committee
for Bryophytes and that of the
Committee for Fossil Plants to the
Committee on
Fossils.
Notes
•
Prop. 4 by Shui & Wen (Rec. 37A Prop. A)
was accepted as amended
(Greuter, McNeill, Kirk, Hawksworth, McNeill, Thiele)
so that the new
paragraph would begin:
“A number permanently identifying the specimen, if available, of the
holotype …”
•
Prop. 6 by Moore & Rushworth (Art. 14 Prop. B)
was accepted as amended
(Greuter, Wiersema) adding the words
“except in the case of correctable
errors”.
•
Prop. 16 by Hawksworth & al. (Gen. prop. Prop. A)
was accepted as
amended (Heerendeen), to reflect the desirability of
recognizing phycology as
well as mycology in the title
and the other specified places in the Code.
A new proposal (Norvell) was,
however, accepted later in the proceedings,
by which the title would change from
International Code of Botanical,
Mycological, and Phycological Nomenclature to
International Code of
Nomenclature for algae, fungi,
and plants.
•
Prop. 17 by Hawksworth & al. (Gen. prop. Prop. B)
was accepted as amended
(McNeill, Reveal), so that the Editorial Committee, rather than add
“and,
fungus/fungi”, was to replace
“plant(s)” by
“organism(s)”,
where it was
intended to include all organisms covered by the Code.
•
Prop. 48 by Redhead & al. (Preamble Prop. A)
was accepted as amended
(Greuter) by deleting the word “phylum” before
“Microsporidia”.
•
Prop. 49 by Redhead & al. (Art. 13 Prop. A)
was accepted as amended (Dorr)
to read
“Names of
Microsporidia are governed …”
•
Prop. 87 by Rabeler & Gandhi (Art. 7 Prop. K)
was referred to the Editorial
Committee, as recommended by the Rapporteurs,
to implement the intent by
inserting
“(See also Art. 7.11)” at the end of Art. 9.21.
•
Prop. 95 by Yu & al. (Art. 53 Prop. E) was
accepted, with the Editorial
Committee to consider if all
the adjectival forms with the stems “tibet-” and
“thibet-” need be included in the Code.
•
Prop. 98-100 by Redhead (Art. 14 Prop. G-I).
The principle of Prop. 99
(Prop. G) was accepted as (Knapp):
“The Editorial Committee has the option
to produce the Appendices to the Code
in electronic form only.” Prop. 98 and
100
(Prop. H and I) were referred to the Editorial Committee to be
implemented accordingly.
•
Prop. 101 by Cleal & Thomas (Gen. prop. Prop. C)
was
accepted in the
understanding that the Editorial Committee
would replace the words “fossil
plants” by “plant fossils”,
“plant, fungal or algal fossils” (Heerendeen),
or
just “fossils” (Rijckevorsel, Funk, Malécot), depending.
•
Prop. 102 by Cleal & Thomas (Art. 1 Prop. A)
was accepted on the
understanding that fossil taxa exclude diatoms (Prud’homme van Reine),
and
that this would be made clear by the Editorial Committee.
•
Prop. 117 by Hawksworth & al. (Art. 37bis Prop. A)
was accepted as amended
by
- adding (Greuter) in Art. 37bis.1 (after “For”): “new names of”
-
rephrasing (Norvell) Art. 37bis.1,
so that the text read
“…the citation of the identifier issued by a recognized repository for the
name (Art. 37bis.3) in the…”
- appending (Norvell) to Art. 37bis.2 the clause
“when
accessioned and published information for an identifier differ the
published information shall be considered definitive”, and
- deleting (May) the asterisked footnote in Art. 37bis.3.
•
Prop. 118 by Hawksworth & al. (Rec. 37bisA Prop. A) was
accepted as
amended (Greuter, Kirk, McNeill), replacing
“(a) deposit minimal elements
of information …” by
“(a)
deposit the required elements of information …”
•
Prop. 124 by Rijckevorsel (Art. 60 Prop. G)
was accepted as amended
(Greuter), to add at the end of the sentence :
“Abbreviated names
and epithets are to be expanded in conformity with
botanical tradition.”
•
Prop. 156 by Sennikov (Art. 7 Prop. E) was
accepted as amended (Greuter),
by inserting at the beginning, after “A name”:
“of a new taxon”.
•
Prop. 180 by Brummitt (Art. 46 Prop. A)
was rejected after having been
amended to form a Recommendation:
“Author citations should not be used
after names of taxa above the rank
of family.”
•
Prop. 181 by Brummitt (Art. 16 Prop. F)
was accepted, with the proviso that
it would be a strictly editorial rearrangement,
without deleting any provision.
•
Prop. 188 by Demoulin (Art. 36 Prop. E)
was accepted; it was
later extended
(Smith)
to cover all organisms treated under the Code, and
(Sennikov) the
starting date brought forward to 1 January 2012 (see
New proposals accepted).
•
Prop. 203 by the Special Committee on Electronic Publication (Art. 29
Prop. A)
was accepted as amended (Heerendeen, Karen Wilson, Soreng,
McNeill, Hawksworth, Paton, Nic Lughadha) by the addition after
“Portable
Document Format” of the words
“or a
successor international standard format
communicated by the General Committee”.
•
Prop. 206 by the Special Committee on Electronic Publication (Art. 30
Prop. A)
was accepted as amended (Ladiges, Paton) by the replacement of
“1 January 2013” with
“1 January 2012”.
•
Prop. 207 by the Special Committee on Electronic Publication (Art. 30
Prop. B)
was accepted as amended (Nic Lughadha, McNeill) by the addition
associated
of the words
“with or within the publication” after “evidence”.
•
Prop. 210 by the Special Committee on Electronic Publication
(Rec. 29A
Prop. A)
was accepted as amended (Karen Wilson) by deletion of
“–1:2005”
in
“PDF/A archival standard (ISO 19005–1:2005)” (as unnecessary).
•
Prop. 211 by the Special Committee on Electronic Publication
(Rec. 29A
Prop. B)
was accepted as amended, so
that the first clause reads:
“Authors
should preferably publish in publications that are archived, …”
(Greuter).
and clause (a) changed to:
“The
material should be placed
in multiple trusted online digital
repositories, e.g. an ISO-certified repository;” (Penev).
and an additional clause (c) added:
“Deposition
of printed copies in libraries
in more than one area of the
world and preferably on different continents is also advisable.”
(Demoulin, Veldkamp).
•
Prop. 220 and 221 by Perry
(Art. 9 Prop. I and Art. 7 Prop. J) and
Prop.
223-232 by Redhead & al.
(Art. 7 Prop. H-I, Art. 9 Prop. J-M, Rec. 9C
Prop. A, Art. 10 Prop. C and Art. 15 Prop. B-C,
not in that order) were
withdrawn [but see
Art. 9 Note 4]
in favour of
a new set of proposals
on the typification of sanctioned names
that was accepted by the Section.
•
Prop. 238 by Proćków & Jakubska-Busse
(Art. 10 Prop. A): the
suggestion of the Rapporteurs that the whole of
Art. 10.5(a)
might be
deleted was proposed as an amendment and was defeated,
prior to
acceptance of the original proposal.
•
Prop. 239 by Turland (Art. 14 Prop. D)
was accepted as amended with
“authors together with the places
and dates of publication” reduced to
“places of publication” (Wiersema) and with
“including names that
otherwise would
not be validly published” appended
(Greuter, Redhead).
It was also suggested to add
“, except under the provisions of Art. 14.12,”
(Rijckevorsel,
Reveal).
•
Prop. 246 by Redhead (Art. 16 Prop. A)
was accepted as amended
(Greuter) so that the first portion
of the second sentence of Art. 16.1 will
read:
“Such names may be either
(a) automatically typified names,
formed from
the genitive singular of a name of an included genus by replacing the
genitive singular inflection
(Latin -ae, -i, -us, -is;
transliterated Greek
-ou, -os, -es, -as, or -ous,
and its equivalent -eos) with the appropriate
termination;”.
•
Prop. 262 by Turland (Art. 6 Prop. A)
was accepted as amended (Greuter,
Sennikov) to adopt “replacement name” rather than
“nomen novum”. It
was also suggested (Turland) to adopt “new status” for
“status novus”. (It
was later pointed out
by the Rapporteurs that “new status”
required
correction to
“name with a new status” or
“name at a new rank”, and that
the Editorial Committee would handle this)
•
Prop. 266 by Turland (Art. 7 Prop. M)
was withdrawn in light of acceptance
of the amendment to Art. 6 Prop. A.
•
Prop. 292 by Brummitt (Art. 51 Prop. A),
having received more than 75%
no-votes in the preliminary mail vote,
was reintroduced from the floor,
and then rejected.
The other published proposal
relating to Acacia
(Turland
in Taxon 60: 913–914. 2011)
was raised from the floor (Schrire). After
discussion,
in which “Protoacacia” was replaced by “Acanthacacia”,
the proposal was rejected. [The
Rijckevorsel proposal was not discussed.]
In addition to the previously published proposals, the following
proposals
made during the sessions of the Nomenclature
Section in Melbourne were
accepted by the Section or,
where so indicated, were referred to the
Editorial Committee.
These include two substantial sets of proposals dealing
with names of fungi.
Typification of sanctioned names
Finally (replacing the
published proposals on sanctiotypification, as well
as an intermediate set of proposals),
the
following set of proposals
(presented by Norvell,
on behalf of Redhead, Pennycook, herself, Perry,
Greuter, Demoulin and Hawksworth) on the typification of sanctioned
names was accepted (new wording in bold):
• Reword Art. 7.8, and position it to follow Art. 8.1:
“8.1bis.
The type of a name of a species
or infraspecific taxon
adopted in one of the works specified in Art. 13.1(d),
and thereby
sanctioned (Art. 15), may be
selected from among the elements
associated with the name
in the protologue and/or the sanctioning
treatment.”
• Add a sentence at the end of Art. 9.2:
“9.2. A lectotype is ….
For sanctioned names, a lectotype may be
selected from among elements associated with either
or both
the protologue and the sanctioning treatment.”
“10.2. If in the protologue of the name of a genus
or of any subdivision
of a genus the holotype or lectotype
of one or more previously or
simultaneously published species name(s)
is definitely included (see
Art. 10.3),
the type must be chosen (Art. 7.10 and 7.11)
from among
these types unless:
a) the type was indicated
(Art. 22.6, 22.7, 37.1 and
37.3) or designated by the author of the name;
b) the name was
sanctioned, in which case the type
may also be chosen from among
the types of species names included
in the sanctioning treatment.
If
no type of a previously
or simultaneously published species name was
definitely included, a type must be otherwise chosen,
but the choice is
to be superseded if it can be demonstrated
that the selected type is not
conspecific with any of the material
associated with the protologue
or
associated with a name in a sanctioning treatment.”
“10.5. The author who first designates
a type of a name of a genus or
subdivision of a genus must be followed,
but the choice may be
superseded if (a) it can be shown
that it is in serious conflict with the
protologue
(or, for a sanctioned name, typified under Art. 8.1bis,
with the sanctioning treatment)
and another element is available which
is not in conflict with the protologue, or
(b) that it was based on a largely
mechanical method of selection.”
[The struck-out text was deleted by the acceptance of
Prop. 238 (Art. 10
Prop. A).]
• Add a new paragraph to Art. 48:
“48.1bis.
Where a sanctioning author accepted an earlier name but
did not include, even implicitly,
any element associated with its
protologue, or when the protologue
did not include the subsequently
designated type of the sanctioned name,
the sanctioning author is
considered to have created a later homonym,
treated as conserved
under Art. 15.1.”
Fungi with a pleomorphic life cycle
The following set of proposals (presented by Redhead), relating to fungi
with
a pleomorphic life cycle, was accepted as amended (May, Greuter, McNeill,
Funk, Rijckevorsel, Greuter, Barrie, Sennikov, Applequist, Barrie, Greuter,
McNeill, Greuter, May, Barrie, Greuter) (with later editorial adjustments
approved by the proposers incorporated):
• Replace the entire Article 59 with:
“59.1.
On and after 1 January 2013, all names of fungi,
including fungi
with mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs) as
well as a meiotic sexual
morph (teleomorph), must conform to all the provisions of this Code
that
are not restricted in application to other groups of organisms
or from
which names of fungi are not specifically excluded.
“Note 1.
Previous editions of this Code provided
for separate names for
so called “form-taxa”, asexual forms (anamorphs) of certain pleomorphic
fungi, and restricted the names applicable to the whole fungus to those
typified by a teleomorph.
All legitimate fungal names are now treated
equally for the purposes of establishing priority, regardless of the life
history stage of the type.
“59.2.
Names published prior to 1 January 2013
for the same taxon of non
lichenized Ascomycota and Basidiomycota
with the intent or implied intent
of applying to, or being typified by separate morphs
(e.g., anamorph,
synanamorph or teleomorph) are not considered
to be alternative names
under Art. 34.2; nor are they to be treated as nomenclaturally superfluous
under Art. 52.1.
If they are otherwise legitimate,
they compete in providing
the correct name for the taxon under Art. 11.3 and 11.4.”
• In Art. 34.2, at the end of the first sentence add “(but see Art. 59.2)”.
• In Art. 52.1, after mention of Art. 52.3 add “and 59.2”.
• Corollaries:
-
in
Art. 1.3,
delete the phrase, “As in the case of
form-taxa for asexual forms
(anamorphs) of certain pleomorphic fungi (Art. 59),”.
- in Art. 7.4, delete the reference to Art. 59.6.
- in Art. 7.9, remove the reference to Art. 59 and remove Note 1.
- in Art. 9.7, remove “(but see also Art. 59.7)”.
-
in
Art. 11.1,
remove “form-taxa of fungi and”
and reference to Art. 59.4
and 59.5.
- in Art. 11.3, remove reference to Art. 59.
-
in
Art. 51.1,
delete the phrase “, or
(in pleomorphic fungi with names
governed by Art. 59)
because the morph represented
by its type is not in
accordance with that of the type of the generic name.”
• Add a new paragraph to Article 14 (new):
“14.n.
For organisms treated as fungi under this Code,
lists of names may
be submitted to the General Committee,
which will refer them to the
Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
for examination by subcommittees
established
by that Committee in consultation with the General
Committee and appropriate international bodies.
Accepted names on
these lists, which become permanent as Appendices XX–YY once
reviewed
by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi and the General
Committee,
are to be listed with their types
together with those
competing synonyms
(including sanctioned names) against which they
are treated as conserved.
For lists of rejected names see Art. 56.n.”
•
Add a new paragraph to Art. 56 [specifically referred to the
Editorial
Committee for wording and placement]:
“56.n.
For organisms treated as fungi under this Code,
lists of rejected
names may also be included in the Appendices established under
Art. 14.n.
Such names are to be treated as though rejected outright
under Art. 56.1
and may become eligible for use only by conservation
under Art. 14.”
• Add a new paragraph to Art. 57:
57.2.
In pleomorphic fungi, in cases where,
prior to 1 January 2013, both
teleomorph-typified and anamorph-typified names
were widely used for
a taxon,
an anamorph-typified name that has priority
must not be taken
up until retention of the teleomorph-typified name
has been considered
by the General Committee and rejected.
Lichenized fungi
•
Subsequently,
a motion from the floor (Lendemer),
to add a new paragraph
to Art. 14, was accepted, as amended (Reveal):
“14.n[bis].
Lichenized fungi,
and those fungi traditionally associated with
them taxonomically (e.g. Mycocaliciaceae,
but not lichenicolous fungi),
are exempt from the newly accepted provisions
in Art. 14.n, 56.n, and
57.2.”
Other new proposals (that were accepted)
•
by Norvell, to amend the title of the Code to become
“International
Code of
Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants”.
•
by Wiersema
(accepted, but with the Editorial Committee to clean it up), to
amend Art.
6.4
second sentence,
18.3, and
19.5
to read (deleted text
struck-out; new text in bold):
“6.4. … A name which according to this Code
was illegitimate when
published cannot become legitimate later unless it
(or, in the case of
names of families or subdivisions of families,
the name on which it
is based)
is conserved or sanctioned.”
“18.3. A name of a family
based on an illegitimate generic name is
illegitimate unless it
or the generic name upon which it is based is
conserved.”
“19.5. A name of a subdivision of a family
based on an illegitimate
generic name
that is not the base of a conserved family name is
illegitimate
unless the generic
name upon which it is based is
conserved or is the base of a conserved family name.”
• by Prud’homme van Reine, to amend Art. 8.4 (addition in bold):
“(e.g. by lyzophilization or deep-freezing
to remain alive in that
inactive state).”
•
by Heerendeen,
to delete reference to “subfossils” from the Code (i.e. from
Art. 11.8).
•
by Prud’homme van Reine, to establish
an Appendix listing binding decisions
made under
Art. 32.4
(on valid publication of names).
•
by Wiersema, McNeill, Greuter,
to give the Editorial Committee a mandate
to restructure
and reword Chapter IV Section 2
(Art. 32-45, Conditions and
Dates of Valid Publication of Names)
to make it more coherent but without
changing the meaning
(except where expressly agreed by this Nomenclature
Section).
•
by Smith:
to extend the newly accepted provision of
Prop. 188 (Art. 36 Prop. E),
to include all organisms covered by the Code.
•
by Sennikov: to bring forward the starting date in
the newly accepted provision
of Prop. 188 (Art. 36 Prop. E), as amended by Smith,
from 1 January 2013
to 1 January 2012.
•
by Reveal, amended (Greuter), to convert
Art. 46 Note 4
into
a rule,
appropriately worded.
•
by Greuter, to replace “is permissible” in the third sentence of
Art. 60.6
with
“is an
optional phonetic device that is not considered
to alter the spelling and
is thus permissible.”
•
by Demoulin, to replace in Art. 62
*Ex. 1
“Eucalyptus L’Hér., which lacks a
botanical tradition” with
“Eucalyptus
L’Hér., which has a botanical tradition,
even if limited in time”.
This was referred to the Editorial Committee.
2011 ©, IAPT
(Report on Congress action);
2014 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel (this page)
all rights reserved