Preface 1966

P R E F A C E

It is a somewhat curious sensation for me, as chairman of the Editorial Committee,
to write a preface to the Code for the last time. Yet, it may not be curious at all
because ever since the last edition I had taken the view that these activities would
cease. Even more than was the case with earlier editions, I left various duties with
respect to the editing and publication of the Code to Frans Stafleu. The objective
part of this preface was, for instance, mainly written by him. It is with this part
that I should like to start, in order to end in a more personal vein.

The procedure adopted in the preparation of this Edinburgh Code has been the
same as that followed for the Stockholm, Paris and Montreal Codes. Although the
number of proposals at Edinburgh was about the same as at Montreal, even a bit
higher (337), the percentage of accepted proposals was much lower than before.
There is a steady increase in the percentage of proposals referred to the Editorial
Committee. The conservative trend mentioned by me in my preface to the Montreal
Code has therefore continued.

The problem of the stabilization of specific names was, as so often in the past,
again an important issue. A, perhaps somewhat rash, attempt from my side to find
a radical solution on the basis of typification, had to fail because I had not suf-
ficiently realized the extent of the emotional reactions that would follow. Further-
more it should be said that making exceptions does not stimulate careful adherence
to the Code. The main point is, I think, that only relatively few names are involved.
Some of the necessary name-changes will cause no trouble, but will even turn out
to be advantageous. It was therefore, in my opinion, a wise decision to appoint a
standing committee for stabilization, which is now studying a number of cases sub-
mitted since the Congress and which will report on these cases to the next Congress.

The report of the proceedings of the nomenclature section was published in
November 1966 as Regnum vegetabile vol. 44. This report has reached all those
that were entitled to the preliminary vote as well as those registered as members
of the section. We are deeply grateful to the Organizing Committee of the Xth
International Botanical Congress for giving us a substantial grant towards the
publication of this report.

The Code as presented now is based on the decisions reached by the Nomenclature
Section of the Xth International Botanical Congress, held at Edinburgh in August
1964. These decisions were officially adopted by the plenary session of that Congress
on 12 August 1964 (see Proceedings of the Congress, p. 35; see also Taxon 13: 283.
1964) and published in Regnum vegetabile as mentioned above. An abstract of the
decisions was published in Taxon 14: 286-292 (1964).

As before, the Nomenclature Section decided that the Code should be published
in the English, French and German languages. These three texts are all official, but,
should there be any inconsistency between the versions, it is agreed to regard the
English one arbitrarily as correct. The English text has been drawn up and agreed
upon by all members of the Editorial Committee, the English-speaking members
having the ultimate decision in matters of grammar or idiom.

The Editorial Committee met in London in the course of November 1965 at the
kind invitation of the Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History) and Mr R.
Ross. The hospitality extended to the Editorial Committee by the Trustees is grate-
fully acknowledged here. The three United States members of the Committee were

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code

– i –

______________________________________________________________________

enabled to attend thanks to a grant made by the National Science Foundation. The
remaining expenses were covered by a grant from the International Union of
Biological Sciences. This important financial support was extremely welcome and
greatly facilitated our operations. A meeting of the Editorial Committee remains
necessary in order to achieve mutual understanding and rapid decisions on numerous
editorial matters. The Nomenclature Section of the Edinburgh Congress left many
more proposals to the discretion of the Committee than before. This shows that the
character of the proposals nowadays tends to become more editorial than fundamental.
The Editorial Committee acknowledges with gratitude the confidence of the Section
which is apparent from this development.

The French text has been prepared by Dr de Vilmorin (chairman of the sub-
committee), Dr Robyns and Dr Rousseau. The final draft of this version was
prepared at a meeting held at the kind invitation of the chairman in his summer cottage
in Favone in June 1966.

The German text was again prepared by Dr Schulze, this time with the able and
close collaboration of his colleague Dr F. Butzin from Berlin-Dahlem.

Much work was done by the secretaries of the various nomenclature committees,
especially with respect to the lists of nomina conservanda. The Committee for
Hybrids worked hard to submit an editorially polished version of the new version
of Appendix I.

A special word of thanks is due to Dr J. M. Schopf who was originally appointed
member of the Editorial Committee. Dr Schopf, through circumstances beyond his
control, found it impossible to participate in the work during the most critical
period and requested to be relieved of his duty. The Committee co-opted Dr S. H.
Mamay in his place. However, especially during the later phases of the preparation
of the manuscript, Dr Schopf was still able to give much valuable advice for which
we are very grateful.

It may be stated again that the main body of the Code was not amended to any
considerable degree. The Committee was instructed to adhere as closely as possible
to the numbering of the Articles and Recommendations of the Paris and Montreal
Codes. A glance at the key to the numbers at the end of this volume will make it clear
that the committee succeeded fully in this respect. No numbers of Articles were
changed and only a few changes had to be effected in the numbering of the
Recommendations, mainly because of some deletions. The general organization of
the subject matter is therefore the same as before.

A number of examples were added to the Code, although not as many as were
recommended for possible adoption. When scrutinizing the proposed examples it was
found in several cases that the problems were more involved and that the examples
would not serve their purpose or would simply not be correct.

Appendix I (Names of hybrids and some special categories) was considerably
amended by the Edinburgh Congress, especially with respect to the nomenclature of
bi- and multi-generic hybrids. Many new examples were added. The Appendix is,
as before, an integral part of the Code.

Appendix II (Nomina familiarum conservanda) was amended only slightly. A
few mistakes were corrected, and the names of families of Recent Gymnosperms
were added. This Appendix was again under the care of the Subcommittee for
Family names of the Committee for Spermatophyta, with its secretary Dr G. Buch-
heim.

Appendix III (Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda) shows little difference
from that of the Montreal Code except that the new cases of conservation are added.
The help received from the members and secretaries of those committees has already

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code

– ii –

______________________________________________________________________

been acknowledged above. Much of the work in international botanical nomenclature
depends on this time-consuming and often unspectacular yet difficult work. All
botanists working in these numerous committees deserve the thanks of the taxonomic
community.

The Guide for the determination of types and the Guide to the citation of botanical
literature are reprinted without change.

The special character of Appendices II and III makes it impossible to print them
immediately behind Appendix I and in front of the Guides. A reference to them has
been inserted in the proper place, and the result is that now all the elements of the
English, French and German versions are printed together followed by these two
bulky Appendices.

The Subject index of the previous Code needed only minor amendments. It is
drawn up in three languages of which the basic language is English. This means
that words that are sufficiently alike in the various languages are not repeated.

A new feature, though not evident from this Code itself, is the ‘Glossary’. The
Edinburgh Congress set up a committee to draw up a glossary of the main technical
terms occurring in the Code. This committee consisted of R. Mc Vaugh (secretary),
H. W. Rickett, R. Ross and F. A. Stafleu. The result of their work “An annotated
glossary of botanical nomenclature, with special reference to the International Code
of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the Tenth International Botanical Congress,
Edinburgh 1964” will be published in Regnum vegetabile early in 1967.

The Committees on Botanical Nomenclature as appointed by the Botanical
Congress are united in the framework of the International Union of Biological
Sciences (I.U.B.S.) in the International Commission for Botanical Nomenclature.
This Commission is one of the “permanent services” of the I.U.B.S. and as such it
receives important moral and financial support from this Union and through it from
the International Council of Scientific Unions (I.C.S.U.) and Unesco. Annual subsidies
finance much of the work of the various committees, and a special grant was given
towards the publication of the Code. Our appreciation of this continuous, liberal and
generous help is as sincere as before. Our efforts to make international botanical
nomenclature a smoothly running and generally acceptable affair would be in vain
without this support.

I should now like to make a few personal remarks. At the nomenclature dinner of
the Edinburgh Congress many kind words were spoken to me. After this, the
members of the Editorial Committee made my parting from their group, again at a
dinner, into an unforgettable and highly original experience. During that evening I
discovered that they had assimilated the thoughts and actionsv of some great pre-
decessors (Linnaeus, Alphonse de Candolle, Briquet, Kuntze, Seward, Merrill, Sprague,
Harms, Miss Green) to such an extent that they could temporarily speak for them.
These impersonations showed them to be good taxonomists as well as actors of
considerable ability. I not only enjoyed that evening deeply, but I also realized
again how grateful I was and still am to have had their friendship as well as the
privilege of their co-operation. My sincere thanks go to all of them including those
who are no longer with us: Baehni, Merrill and Sprague. I cherish the memory of
these three friends and colleagues, and think of them with deep emotion.

Leaving the Editorial Committee does not mean that I shall loose interest in the
Code. I hope to show my continued concern with nomenclature at coming
Congresses. I hope that the nomenclature committees as well as the section will
remain as lively and friendly as before. I have always taken the somewhat idealistic
point of view that our work on nomenclature benefits science.

A good Code, however, is not by itself sufficient. We need good plant taxonomists

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code

– iii –

______________________________________________________________________

who use and interpret the Code with understanding. It is one of our tasks to pass on
this handling of the Code to those young botanists who come to our Universities to
learn the art of taxonomy. It is for this reason that I am deeply satisfied that my
successor as Rapporteur général, Frans Stafleu, was appointed this year as a professor
at my and his Alma mater, Utrecht, with the charge, among others, to teach these
matters. Everyone knows his part in the preparation of this and previous Codes, but
I want to express again my special appreciation for his excellent work.

Finally, in accordance with, but not because of, tradition, a word of sincere
gratitude to Wil Keuken. Her work is now known in all plant taxonomic corners of
the earth. Everybody knowing her from nomenclature meetings or other I.A.P.T.
activities will be impressed by the quality and efficiency of her work, but especially
by the amiable way in which it is carried out. We in Utrecht benefit daily by it.
Good secretaries are the backbone of our scientific institutions and organizations.
I.A.P.T. has such a backbone.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1966 — Edinburgh Code

– iv –

______________________________________________________________________

[ to body of the 1966, Edinburgh Code ]