Preface |
PREFACE
The XVIII International Botanical Congress held in Melbourne,
Australia
in July 2011 made a number of very significant changes
in the rules gov-
erning
what has long been termed botanical nomenclature,
although
always covering algae and fungi as well as green plants.
This edition of
the Code embodies these decisions,
the first of which that must be noted
is the change in its title.
Since the VII International Botanical Congress in
Stockholm in 1950,
successive editions of the Code have been published as
the
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature,
commonly abbreviated
as ICBN.
In Melbourne, reflecting the view,
particularly amongst mycolo-
gists,
that the word “Botanical” was misleading
and could imply that the
Code covered only green plants
and excluded fungi and diverse algal lin-
eages,
it was agreed that the name be changed to
International Code of
Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.
In referring to the Code under
its new title,
we will use the abbreviation ICN.
The rules that govern the scientific naming of algae, fungi,
and green plants
are revised at Nomenclature Section meetings
at successive International
Botanical Congresses. As noted above,
this edition of the Code embod-
ies the decisions of
the XVIII Congress in Melbourne in 2011.
It super-
sedes the Vienna Code, published six years ago
subsequent to the XVII
International Botanical Congress in Vienna,
Austria and like its immediate
predecessors,
it is written entirely in (British) English.
The Vienna Code
was translated into Chinese, Japanese,
Portuguese, Russian, and Turkish;
it is therefore anticipated
that the Melbourne Code, too,
will become avail-
able in several languages.
The
Melbourne Code represents
a much more substantial revision
to the
rules of nomenclature
than has been the case
with any other recent edi-
tion of the
Code.
This is not only due to the important changes
accepted in
Melbourne,
but also because the Editorial Committee
was instructed to re-
organize
the rules on valid publication of names
in a more logical manner
(see below),
and took upon itself a more thorough examination
of the over-
all clarity and consistency of the
Code.
However, despite this, the overall
presentation and arrangement
of the remaining text of the
Melbourne Code
remains broadly similar to that in the
Vienna Code.
A key is provided (pp.
xxiii–xxviii)
to the Articles, Notes, and Recommendations
renumbered
between the
Vienna and
Melbourne Codes.
ix |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– ix –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
More strikingly, it was agreed in Melbourne
that the Appendices
(other
than App. I on the nomenclature of hybrids)
need no longer be pub-
lished
along with the main text,
and indeed may be published only elec-
tronically.
Consequently this volume comprises
only the main text of the
Code,
that is the
Preamble,
Division I Principles,
Division II Rules and
Recommendations,
Division III Provisions for the Governance of the
Code,
Appendix I Names of Hybrids, the
Glossary, the Index of scientific
names,
and the Subject index.
A separate volume comprising Appendices
II–VIII
will be published later, both as a printed volume and electronically.
Appendices II–VI will cover conserved and rejected names
and suppressed
works as in the Vienna Code,
but App. VII and VIII are new
and reflect a
decision of the Melbourne Congress
to include in Appendices the binding
decisions
under Art. 38.4
of this Code on whether or not to treat a name
as validly published when it is doubtful
whether a descriptive statement
satisfies the requirement
for a “description or diagnosis” and those
under
Art. 53.5
on whether or not to treat names as homonyms when it is doubtful
whether they or their epithets are sufficiently alike to be confused.
In addition to the change in the title of the Code
and the separation of the
Appendices,
there were five other major changes
to the rules of nomencla-
ture adopted in Melbourne:
the acceptance of certain forms of electronic
publication;
the option of using English as an alternative to Latin
for the
descriptions or diagnoses of new taxa of non-fossil organisms;
the require-
ment for registration as a prerequisite
for valid publication of new names
of fungi;
the abolition of the provision for separate names for fungi
with
a pleomorphic life history;
and the abandonment of the morphotaxon
con-
cept in the nomenclature of fossils.
The Nomenclature Section approved overwhelmingly
the series of propos-
als prepared
by the Special Committee on Electronic Publication
set up by
the Vienna Congress in 2005 (see
Chapman & al.
in Taxon 59: 1853–1862.
2010).
This means that it is no longer necessary for new names of plants,
fungi, and algae (and designations of types)
to appear in printed matter in
order to be effectively published.
As an alternative, publication online in
Portable Document Format (PDF)
in a publication with an International
Standard Serial Number (ISSN)
or International Standard Book Number
(ISBN) is permitted.
The Special Committee had proposed 1 January 2013
as the starting date for the new rules (the beginning of the year
following the
expected publication of this edition of the Code),
but the Section believed
implementation so important
that it decided to bring the date forward to
1 January 2012.
As this was ahead of publication of the Code
and because of
x |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– x –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
the significance of the change,
a paper reporting the details of the decision
and incorporating a draft of the new rules was published
in September 2011
almost simultaneously in 17 journals,
and has been translated from English
into eight languages
(see e.g.
Knapp & al. in Taxon 60: 1498–1501. 2011).
The provision for electronic publication by PDF
in an online publication
with an ISSN or ISBN is included
in Art. 29,
and the circumstances that
do not constitute effective publication,
both electronically and otherwise,
are set out
in Art. 30.
In the case of electronic publication, these circum-
stances
include the publication being a preliminary one,
and any altera-
tions made after effective publication.
Article 31,
dealing with the date of
effective publication,
includes matter peculiar to electronic publication.
Recommendation 29A sets out a series of recommendations
on best prac-
tice in electronic publishing,
particularly with regard to long-term archiv-
ing,
and 12 new Examples are provided
in Art. 29–31
addressing a number
of situations
that arise with electronic publication.
The requirement that for valid publication of the name of a new taxon
a
Latin description or diagnosis be provided goes back
to the
Vienna Rules
of 1906 (Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot. 1906).
It was not, however, a
feature of the rival
American Code of 1907
(Arthur & al. in Bull. Torrey Bot.
Club 34: 167–178. 1907) and so,
when the schism was healed in 1930 at the
V International Botanical Congress in Cambridge, U.K.,
the effective date
was moved forward to 1 January 1935.
Names of algae and fossils were
ini-
tially exempt from the requirement;
for the former
it was later required from
1 January 1958,
whereas for the latter, the first language restriction
came at
the Tokyo Congress of 1993,
which specified
that from 1 January 1996,
the
description or diagnosis must be in either English or Latin.
A proposal was
made to the Nomenclature Section in Melbourne
to extend this requirement
for names of fossils to names of fungi,
but the Section decided to apply this
rule to all organisms
under the jurisdiction of the ICN and also decided that,
like the rules on electronic publication,
this more permissive provision
would
become effective on 1 January 2012.
The general provisions are in
Art. 39
(names in all groups being covered by
Art. 39.2),
whereas the special provi-
sions for names of fossils are in
Art. 43.1
and those of algae in
Art. 44.1.
Since 2004, the online database MycoBank
(http://www.mycobank.org/)
has become increasingly used by mycologists
to register new fungal names
and associated data,
such as descriptions and illustrations.
Upon registra-
tion, MycoBank issues a unique number,
which can be cited in the publica-
tion where the name appears.
This number is also used by the nomenclatural
xi |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xi –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
database Index Fungorum
(http://www.indexfungorum.org/)
and serves as
a Life Science Identifier (LSID).
Many journals, including Taxon, already
require
inclusion of this identifier for acceptance of papers
with nomen-
clatural novelties involving fungi.
The Congress in Melbourne decided
to make mandatory
for valid publication of a new fungal name
published
on or after 1 January 2013
“the citation in the protologue of the identifier
issued by a recognized repository for the name”
(see Art. 42).
This rule
applies to names of new taxa, new combinations,
names at new ranks, and
replacement names.
Since the Brussels Congress in 1910,
there has been provision for a separate
name (or names)
for the asexual (anamorph) state (or states) of fungi
with a
pleomorphic life cycle from that applicable
to the sexual (teleomorph) state
and to the whole fungus.
The Brussels Rules
(Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl.
Bot., ed. 2. 1912)
specified that names given to states other than the sexual
one
(the “perfect state”) “have only a temporary value”, apparently
antici-
pating a time when they would no longer be needed.
At the Melbourne
Congress, it was decided that this time had come –
but not through disuse
as may have been envisaged in Brussels.
Throughout the various changes
since 1912 to the rules
on names of fungi with a pleomorphic life cycle,
one element has remained constant: the correct name
for the taxon in all
its morphs (the holomorph)
was the earliest applicable to the sexual state
(the teleomorph).
In Melbourne, this restriction was overturned
and it was
decided that all legitimate fungal names were to be
treated equally for the
purposes of establishing priority,
regardless of the life history stage of the
type.
As a consequence the Melbourne Congress also approved
additional
special provisions for the conservation
and rejection of fungal names to
mitigate
the nomenclatural disruption that would otherwise arise.
Article 59,
which has dealt with names of pleomorphic fungi
in all recent
editions of the Code,
is now limited to one paragraph establishing
that names
published prior to 1 January 2013
as applicable to one morph but includ-
ing
in the protologue a name (or names) applicable
to a different morph are
not made illegitimate on that account.
There are also Notes clarifying the
nomenclatural effect
of all fungal names competing equally for priority.
The
main provisions adopted in Melbourne to minimize
consequent nomenclatu-
ral disruption are to be found
in Art. 14.13,
by which lists of names may,
after
review by the appropriate committees,
be conserved en bloc and included
in Appendices to the Code. In addition, a new
Art. 56.3
provides for similar
lists of names to be rejected, while a new
Art. 57.2
specifies that,
where both
kinds of names were widely used for a taxon,
an anamorph-typified name
xii |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xii –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
that has priority is not to displace the teleomorph name(s)
unless and until a
formal conservation or rejection proposal
has been submitted and rejected.
Since the
Stockholm Code
(Lanjouw & al. in Regnum Veg. 3. 1952)
there
have been special rules for names of fossils
reflecting their frequent frag-
mentary occurrence.
The details have changed over time, but, most recently,
the Code has adopted the concept of “morphotaxa” that,
for nomenclatur-
al purposes, comprised only the one part,
life-history stage, or preser-
vational state represented
by the corresponding nomenclatural type.
The
Nomenclature Section adopted a set of proposals
(for details see Cleal &
Thomas
in Taxon 59: 261–268;
312–313. 2010)
by which the concept of mor-
photaxa is abandoned,
but with this the distinction is clarified between fos-
sils,
the physical objects that exist
and to which the rules of nomenclature
apply,
and the organisms from which the fossils were derived
but that no
longer exist except as hypothetical reconstructions.
As it is only the former
that can generally be named,
it was agreed that a morphotaxon concept was
unnecessary,
and in those cases in which two or more fossils
can be shown
to belong to the same organism,
allowing their names to compete for prior-
ity
in the usual way would not be destabilizing.
Article 1.2
now defines what
is meant by a fossil-taxon
(rather than a morphotaxon) and
Art. 11.1
estab-
lishes that the use of separate names
is allowed for fossil-taxa that represent
different parts,
life-history stages, or preservational states of what may have
been
a single organismal taxon or even a single individual.
Other important changes to the rules were adopted in Melbourne,
but these
were of a more technical nature than the five outlined
above all of which
have broader implications
for users of names of organisms covered by the
ICN.
Some of these more technical changes are described below.
Reference has been made
to the restructuring of the section of the Code
dealing with the requirements for valid publication of names.
One of the
major difficulties with this section
in all recent editions of the Code
was that
the provisions for valid publication of names of new taxa
and those for valid
publication of renamings of existing taxa,
i.e. new combinations, names
at new ranks,
and replacement names, were not clearly distinguished.
In
addition the placement of some matters
such as misplaced ranks as rather
illogical,
and others, such as the provision
for an illustration with analy-
sis
were to some degree duplicated.
The new structure of this portion of
the Code,
now established as a separate chapter
(V:
“Valid Publication of
Names”)
is much more logical, and,
although it may take some of us a little
time to get used
to different numberings for frequently cited clauses
(e.g.
xiii |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xiii –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
Art. 38.1(a)
instead of 32.1(d)
for the requirement for a validating descrip-
tion or diagnosis),
we are convinced that this chapter
will now be much
easier to understand and to apply.
The chapter is divided into four sections.
Section 1, General Provisions
(Art. 32–37),
contains the rules applicable to all names,
such as the require-
ment for effective publication,
the form of the name, the determination of
date,
the requirement for acceptance by the publishing author
and for clear
indication of rank,
and the provision for names not being validly published
by suppression of the work in which they appear.
Section 2, Names of new
taxa
(Art. 38–40),
covers their particular requirements
such as the need for
a description or diagnosis,
the language of that description or diagnosis,
and the requirement for type designation.
Section 3, New combinations,
names at new ranks,
replacement names
(Art. 41),
encompasses all the pro-
visions relating to such names,
including permissible ranks of a basionym
or replaced synonym,
and the requirements, varying over time,
for refer-
ence to that basionym or replaced synonym.
Section 4, Names in particular
groups
(Art. 42–45),
incorporates those provisions that are only applicable
to names of
fungi (Art. 42),
fossils (Art. 43),
algae (Art. 44),
and taxa origi-
nally assigned to groups not covered by this Code
(Art. 45).
Despite the rather dramatic changes accepted in Melbourne
that are
described above, taken overall,
the Melbourne Congress like most of its
predecessors,
was rather conservative in that less than a quarter (24%)
of the
published proposals were accepted. Nevertheless,
a small number of signifi-
cant changes incorporating
many useful clarifications and improvements to
the Code,
both in wording and substance, were adopted.
Here we only draw
attention to changes of some note.
A full report on the Section’s decisions
has been published elsewhere
(McNeill & al.
in Taxon 60: 1507–1520. 2011).
Although not involving any change in the rules themselves,
the Congress in
Melbourne accepted a proposal
for clear definition of the terms, “name of
a new taxon”,
“new combination”, and “replacement name”
(Art. 6.9–6.11).
This not only allows these concepts to be referred
to more clearly through-
out the Code and avoids
cumbersome phrases such as “generic name with a
basionym”,
but also facilitates the separation of the different rules
for valid
publication of names of new taxa
from those for new combinations, names
at new ranks,
and replacement names referred to above.
As a by-product,
two paragraphs of
Art. 7
were transposed,
that dealing with typification of
a new combination
or a name at new rank
(now Art. 7.3)
has been, more
logically,
placed ahead of that of a replacement name
(now
Art. 7.4).
xiv |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xiv –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
The Melbourne Section accepted the term “replacement name”
as the pre-
ferred term in the Code over “nomen novum”
and “avowed substitute”,
although use of the term nomen novum
(or its abbreviation nom. nov.) is
still recommended
when publishing a replacement name
(Rec. 32A.1).
The rules on typification of sanctioned names and of names
in groups
with a starting date later than 1753
are necessarily different from those for
other names,
but in changes to the Code over the years,
such as the intro-
duction of the definition of “original material”,
this has not always been
taken fully into account.
The Congress in Melbourne clarified typification
of both these groups of name.
Article 7.8
now addresses specifically the
typification of names in groups
with a later starting date. The typification
of sanctioned names,
resolved as a result of an ad hoc committee meeting
during the Nomenclature Section in Melbourne,
requires slightly different
rules for names of species
and infraspecific taxa from those for names of
genera
and subdivisions of genera and are to be found in
Art. 9.10 and
Art.
10.2(b)
(with 10.5),
respectively. The circumstances under which a sanc-
tioned name
excludes the original type of the name are set out in
Art. 48.3.
The terms “isolectotype”, “isoneotype”, and “isoepitype”
do not apply to
any element that has particular significance
under the rules, and so have not
hitherto appeared in the Code.
Their meaning is self-evident and there are
situations
(including the Appendices to the Code)
in which their adoption
is useful.
Moreover their absence from the Code has apparently
prompted
some to question the appropriateness of their use.
As a result of a proposal
accepted in Melbourne,
their use is now included in
Rec. 9C.
It has long been established that a name that was illegitimate
when pub-
lished remains illegitimate unless it is conserved.
There are, however, a sig-
nificant number of family names
in current use that, when published,
were
formed from illegitimate generic names that have
since been conserved.
Although the rules are retroactive,
the effect of the rules is not, so that,
under previous editions of the Code,
the subsequent conservation of the
generic name
did not make legitimate the family name formed from it;
this
was only possible by conservation of the family name itself.
Amendments
accepted in Melbourne and included in
Art. 18.3 and
19.6
establish that the
conservation of the generic name
now also makes legitimate the name of a
family
and the names of subdivisions of a family formed from it.
Three small but important changes were made to the rules
on conserva-
tion of names.
Because only names at the ranks of species,
genus and
family may be conserved,
a problem has recently been recognized in the
xv |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xv –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
case of conservation with a conserved type
of a generic name or species
name
based on the name of a subdivision of a genus
or of an infraspecific
taxon, respectively.
As the latter could not be conserved,
it would neces-
sarily retain the type determined
by the other rules of the Code
and not the
conserved type with the potential of defeating
the purpose of conserva-
tion
(although this was ignored in the entries in the Appendices
of previ-
ous editions of the Code). For example,
Stipa viridula var. robusta Vasey
retained its type (applicable to S. lobata Swallen),
even although S. robusta
Scribn. was conserved
at the St Louis Congress with a different conserved
type,
and as a result Achnatherum robustum (Vasey) Barkworth,
a comb-
ination in current use, retained the type of the varietal name
and not the
intended conserved type.
This was resolved in Melbourne by the addition
to
Art. 14.1
of the sentence: “The name of a subdivision of a genus
or of an
infraspecific taxon may be conserved with a conserved type
and listed in
App. III and
IV, respectively,
when it is the basionym of a name of a genus
or species that could
not continue to be used in its current sense without
conservation.”
The Congress also made this provision apply retroactively
for all such existing conserved names, so that, for example,
S. viridula var.
robusta is now conserved
with the type that was conserved for S. robusta.
It has commonly been assumed that, just as the type
of a conserved name
is
de facto conserved (by the application of
Art. 14.8)
regardless of whether
the name is explicitly conserved
with a conserved type, so also the spelling
of a conserved name
could not be altered. This has now been made explicit,
also in
Art. 14.8.
Whereas a name may be conserved to preserve its spelling and gender
as well
as its application, there has never been any provision
to maintain its place
and date of publication. As
Art. 14 Note 1
put it, the Code did “not provide
for conservation of a name
against itself, i.e. against an isonym”.
Although
this has been maintained in general,
a special exception has now been pro-
vided for the family names
of bryophytes and spermatophytes included in
App. IIB.
Article 14.15
provides that the places of publication cited for those
names
are treated as correct in all circumstances and consequently
are not to
be changed (except by a new conservation proposal),
even when otherwise
such a name would not be validly published
or when it is a later isonym.
Although the name of any subdivision of a family that includes
the type
of the family name must be based on the same generic name
as that of
the family
(Art. 19.4),
there are often circumstances in which the earliest
name
for a subdivision of a family is not the most familiar one,
particularly
xvi |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xvi –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
when long-established families are united.
This prompted the acceptance
in Melbourne
of the provision that appears in
Art. 19.5
by which a name
of any subdivision of a family
formed from the same generic name as a
conserved family name
listed in App. IIB has precedence over names not
so formed
(unless
Art. 19.4
applies).
The rules on attribution of a name to an author or authors
rely heavily on
the concept of ascription
(Art. 46.3)
(“the direct association of the name
of a person or persons
with a new name or description or diagnosis of a
taxon”).
However, although the authorship of a description or diagnosis
is
commonly unambiguous
(being, for example, the author of the publication)
it is uncommon for the author’s name to be directly associated
with any sin-
gle description or diagnosis.
Accordingly it was agreed in Melbourne that
Art. 46.2
be amended to add the words “or unequivocally associated with”.
Article 48
has long established that adopting an existing name
but defi-
nitely excluding its “original” type,
establishes a later homonym, but in
practice
this has had limited application because very few early names,
at
least of species and infraspecific taxa, have an original type.
The Congress
decided to make the rule more practical,
by deleting “original” and defin-
ing exclusion of the type
in a way analogous to that adopted for inclusion of
a type
in Art. 52
for superfluous names
(see Art. 48.2
of this Code).
Among the more narrowly focussed changes incorporated in the
Melbourne
Code are the following:
It is made clear that the Microsporidia,
although
phylogenetically related to the fungi,
continue to fall under the provisions of
the ICZN.
Names above the rank of family, like family names,
are treated as
derived from the name of an included genus
(and not from a family name).
The terminations of automatically typified names
above the rank of family
are now all incorporated
within Articles
(Art. 16.3 and
17.1),
whereas previ-
ously most were dealt with indirectly
through a Recommendation. A provi-
sion
has been included in
Art. 56
to make it clearer that once the rejection
of a name
under that Article has been approved by the General Committee,
rejection of the name is authorized in the same manner
as is ruled for con-
served names in
Art. 14.16;
in previous editions,
this was only noted inci-
dentally in
Art. 14.
It is also made clear
(Art. 9.5)
that reference to an entire
gathering, or a part thereof,
is considered citation of the included specimens.
The Glossary, a new feature in the Vienna Code,
has retained its basic struc-
ture but has been revised and updated.
New entries in the Glossary include:
“author citation”,
“binding decision”, “element”, “isoepitype”, “isolec-
totype”,
“isoneotype”, “name of a new taxon”, “organism”,
“suppressed
xvii |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xvii –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
works”, and “type designation”,
while some existing entries have been sub-
stantially revised,
e.g. “basionym”, and “confusingly similar names”;
for
others, such as “name at new rank (status novus)”
and “replacement name
(avowed substitute)”,
the primary entry has been changed to reflect
the pre-
ferred term in the Code.
Five entries have been deleted (“exsiccata”,
“form
taxon”, “holomorph”, “morphotaxon”, and “plant”),
reflecting the fact that
these terms are no longer
used in the Code (or not in any special way).
This
reflects the role of the Glossary which is strictly
to explain terms used in the
Code,
and where possible to do so using the precise wording
associated with
these terms in the Code.
The Glossary does not seek to cover all terms
use-
ful in the nomenclature of organisms falling
under the Code; for that users
can refer to a work
such as Hawksworth, Terms used in Bionomenclature
(2010; see
http://bionomenclature-glossary.gbif.org/).
In recent editions of the Code the text
has used three different sizes of type,
the Recommendations and Notes being set in smaller type
than the Articles,
and the Examples and footnotes
in smaller type than the Recommendations
and Notes.
These type sizes, which have been maintained in this edition,
reflect the distinction between mandatory rules (Articles),
complementary
information or advice (Notes and Recommendations),
and explanatory mate-
rial (Examples and footnotes).
The Melbourne Code has, however,
attempted
to make this distinction clearer
by including the numbers of each paragraph
of the Articles
(and of those of the Preamble and Principles)
in white within
a black background,
but not doing so for the paragraph numbers of the
Recommendations.
Notes, which explain something that may not at first
be
readily apparent but is covered explicitly
or implicitly elsewhere in the Code,
are appropriately identified with an “i” (for “information”)
highlighted in
the same way as the Article numbers.
A Note has binding effect but, unlike
an Article,
does not introduce any new provision or concept.
Examples are
distinguished, in addition to the smaller font size,
by being indented.
Most Examples in the Code have been provided
by successive Editorial
Committees,
some on the basis of suggestions made at a Nomenclature
Section,
but the majority emanating from the work of the Editorial
Committees
themselves. A number of Examples, however, are not of this
type.
These are prefixed by an asterisk (*) in the Code
and are termed
“voted Examples”.
They are Examples that were formally accepted
by a
Nomenclature Section of a Congress
and contain material that is not fully,
or not explicitly,
covered in the rules.
A voted Example is therefore compa-
rable to a rule,
as contrasted with other Examples provided
by the Editorial
Committee solely for illustrative purposes.
In the Melbourne Code, the
xviii |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xviii –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
footnote (to
Art. 7 Ex. 13)
explaining the significance of the asterisk
and
the Glossary entry on “voted Example” have been elaborated
to make the
function of a voted Example clearer.
As in all recent editions,
scientific names under the jurisdiction of the Code,
irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type.
The Code sets
no binding standard in this respect,
as typography is a matter of editorial
style and tradition,
not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and authors,
in the interest of international uniformity,
may wish to consider adhering
to the practice exemplified
by the Code, which has been well received in
general
and is followed in a number of botanical and mycological journals.
To set off scientific names even better,
the abandonment in the Code of ital-
ics for technical terms
and other words in Latin,
traditional but inconsistent
in early editions,
has been maintained.
Like its predecessors, this Editorial Committee has tried hard
to achieve uni-
formity in bibliographic style and formal presentation.
The titles of books in
bibliographic citations are abbreviated
in conformity with
Taxonomic
litera-
ture, ed. 2,
by Stafleu & Cowan (in
Regnum Veg. 94,
98,
105,
110,
112,
115,
116. 1976–1988;
with Supplements 1–6 by Stafleu & Mennega in
Regnum
Veg. 125,
130,
132,
134,
135,
137. 1992–2000,
and 7–8 by Dorr & Nicolson
in
Regnum Veg. 149,
150. 2008–2009),
or by analogy, but with capital initial
letters. For journal titles,
the abbreviations follow
BPH-2 by Bridson & al.
(2004).
In the editing of this edition, a more thorough review
to ensure con-
sistent usage in language and terminology
has been undertaken. For exam-
ple, whereas “specific rank”
and “specific epithet” are used, the diverse use
of “species name”
and “specific name” has been standardised in favour of
the former.
Most of this work was accomplished by one of us (NJT),
but we
have been aided substantially by one member
of the Editorial Committee
(Werner Greuter) having occasion
to review the wording of the Code in
great detail
and in so doing identified a number of other inconsistencies
and
possible ambiguities that have consequently been rectified.
Author citations of scientific names appearing in the Code
are standardized
in conformity with Authors of Plant Names,
by Brummitt & Powell (1992),
as mentioned in
Rec. 46A Note 1;
these are also adopted and updated by the
International Plant Names Index,
and may be accessed at
http://www.ipni
.org/ipni/authorsearchpage.do.
One may note that the Code has no tradition
of recording
the ascription of names to pre-1753 authors by the validating
author,
although such “pre-ex” author citations are permitted (see
Art. 46
Ex. 35).
xix |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xix –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
The Melbourne Code was prepared according to the procedures
outlined in
Division III, which have been operating
with hardly any change since the
Paris Congress of 1954.
Altogether, 338 numbered proposals to amend the
Code
were published in Taxon between February 2008 and December 2010.
Their synopsis, with comments by the Rapporteurs, appeared in
Taxon (60:
243–286) in February 2011 and served as the basis
for the preliminary,
non-binding mail vote by the members
of the International Association for
Plant Taxonomy
(and some other persons), as specified in
Division III
of
the Code. Tabulation of the mail vote
was handled at the Central Office of
the International Association for Plant Taxonomy in Vienna
by the then
Managing Secretary of IAPT,
Alessandra Ricciuti Lamonea, and her assis-
tants.
The results were made available to the members of the Nomenclature
Section
at the beginning of its meetings;
they were also tabulated in the
October 2011 issue of Taxon (60: 1507–1520),
along with the actions taken
by Congress.
The Nomenclature Section met in the Copland Theatre,
Economics
and Commerce Building, University of Melbourne (Parkville campus),
Melbourne, Australia, from Monday, 18 July until Friday, 22 July.
There
were 204 registered members in attendance,
carrying 396 institutional
votes in addition to their personal votes,
making a total of 600 possible
votes.
Although as in Vienna in 2005 this was a large attendance
compared
with many previous Congresses, it was substantially smaller
than that at
St. Louis in 1999, which had a record attendance
(with 297 members car-
rying 494 institutional votes,
making a total of 791 possible votes).
The
Section officers, previously appointed in conformity with
Division III
of
the Code, were S. Knapp (President), B. J. Lepschi (Recorder),
J. McNeill
(Rapporteur-général), and N. J. Turland (Vice-Rapporteur).
The Recorder
was assisted by A. M. Monro.
Each Nomenclature Section is entitled to
define its own procedural rules
within the limits set by the Code.
As on
previous occasions,
at least a 60% assenting majority was required for any
proposed change
to the Code to be adopted.
Proposals that received 75%
or more “no” votes in the mail vote
were ruled as rejected unless raised
anew from the floor.
The Nomenclature Section also appointed the Editorial Committee
for the
Melbourne Code.
As is traditional, only persons present at the Section
meetings
were invited to serve on that Committee,
which as the Code
requires is chaired by the Rapporteur-général
and as is logical includes
the Vice-Rapporteur as its secretary.
The Nominating Committee of the
Nomenclature Section in Melbourne
decided to increase the size of the
xx |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xx –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
Editorial Committee from the usual 12 to 14 to provide
for better interna-
tional representation.
The Committee convened
on 5 December 2011 at the
Natural History Museum, London, England,
for a full week’s hard work.
The Committee worked on the basis
of a draft of the text of the main body
of the
Code,
prepared by the Chairman to incorporate the changes
decided
by the Section,
but also incorporating an initial draft
re-organization of
Art. 32–45
prepared by Werner Greuter.
This draft of the new Code was
distributed by e-mail
shortly before the meeting;
along with a prelimi-
nary version
of the proceedings of the Section meetings,
as transcribed by
Pacific Transcription, Queensland,
and edited by Anna Monro.
Each Editorial Committee has the task of addressing matters
specifically
referred to it, incorporating changes agreed
by the Section, clarifying
any ambiguous wording,
ensuring consistency,
and providing additional
Examples for inclusion.
The terms of the Committee’s mandate,
as defined
by the Section in Melbourne, included,
in addition to the specific man-
date to re-organize the section
on valid publication,
the usual empower-
ment to alter the wording,
the Examples, or the location of Articles and
Recommendations,
in so far as the meaning was not affected;
while retain-
ing the present numbering
in so far as possible.
The full Editorial Committee concentrated
on the main body of the Code,
including
Appendix I (hybrids).
A new electronic draft of these portions
was completed
following the Editorial Committee meeting,
and provided
to all members on 20 January for checking
and for any further necessary
clarification;
as a result a revised draft was prepared and circulated
to all
members on 6 April.
The implementation of the provisions
on electronic
publication
on 1 January 2012 provided an opportunity
to add clarifying
examples
on effective (and ineffective) electronic publication.
The fortui-
tous attendance of five members of the Editorial Committee,
including the
Chairman and Secretary,
at a meeting of the International Committee on
Bionomenclature
at the Berlin Botanic Garden from 26 to 28 April
spon-
sored by International Union of Biological Sciences
was particularly useful
in finalizing this section of the Code.
Subsequently a further, near-final,
draft was circulated
to the entire Committee on 6 June for further proof-
reading,
followed by a final draft on 2 July for final proofreading.
Several
inconsistencies and a few errors were noted thereafter,
and these were cor-
rected during the subsequent formatting.
The Index of scientific names was revised by Franz Stadler
and the Subject
index by the Rapporteurs.
xxi |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xxi –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Preface |
This is the proper place for us to thank all those
who have contributed to the
publication of the new Code:
our fellow members of the Editorial Committee
for their forbearance,
helpfulness, and congeniality;
Anna Monro, for mak-
ing readily usable so promptly
the raw transcription of the Nomenclature
Section proceedings;
all those who volunteered advice and suggestions,
including relevant new Examples;
the International Association for Plant
Taxonomy
and its successive Secretaries-General,
Tod Stuessy and Karol
Marhold,
for maintaining IAPT’s traditional commitment
to nomenclature
by funding travel and some ancillary costs
for the Editorial Committee
meeting in London;
and The Natural History Museum, London
for facili-
tating that meeting by providing a meeting room
and electronic access.
The ongoing implementation of the Code
depends not only on those who
have helped
to make this new edition possible but also
on the scores of
members of the Permanent Nomenclature Committees
that work continu-
ously between Congresses, dealing principally
with proposals for conser-
vation or rejection of names,
and also those who are members of Special
Committees set up
by the Nomenclature Section of the Congress to review
and seek solutions to particular nomenclatural problems.
The nomenclature
of algae, fungi, and plants is remarkable
for the large number of taxonomists
who voluntarily work
so effectively and so extensively to the immeasurable
benefit
of all those who use the names governed by this Code.
On their
behalf we express our sincere thanks
to all who participate in this work.
The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi,
and plants is
published under the ultimate authority
of the International Botanical
Congresses. Provisions
for the modification of the Code are detailed in
Division III (p. 141).
The next International Botanical Congress will be
held in Shenzhen,
China from 23 to 29 July 2017, with a Nomenclature
Section meeting
in the preceding week (18–22 July).
Invitation for propos-
als to amend this Code
and instructions on procedure and format will be
published
in Taxon early in 2014.
Like other international codes of nomenclature
the ICN has no legal sta-
tus
and is dependent on the voluntary acceptance of its rules by authors,
editors, and other users of names that it governs.
We trust that this
Melbourne Code
will make their work just that little easier.
Edinburgh and Saint Louis, 30 September 2012
John McNeill | Nicholas J. Turland |
xxii |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xxii –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Re-numbering |
KEY TO THE RE-NUMBERING OF ARTICLES, NOTES,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Nomenclature Section in Melbourne instructed
the Editorial Com-
mittee
to re-organize the rules on valid publication of names (Art.
32–45)
in a more logical manner.
As a result the Articles, Notes, and
Recommendations
in what is now Chapter V have been substantially re-
arranged.
This key includes all these changes
and also those in other parts
of the Code.
Examples are omitted as these can readily be traced
via the
Indices,
through the scientific names mentioned.
1. VIENNA CODE TO MELBOURNE CODE
Pre. 2–7
.....................................
Pre. 8–11 ................................... Art. 1.3 ...................................... Art. 1 Note 1 .............................. Art. 7.3 ...................................... Art. 7.4 ...................................... Art. 7.7 ...................................... Art. 7.8 ...................................... Art. 7.9 ...................................... Art. 7.10–7.11 ............................ Art. 7 Note 1 .............................. Art. 9.3–9.8 ................................ Art. 9.9–9.21 .............................. Art. 9 Note 2 .............................. Art. 9 Note 3–5 .......................... Rec. 9A.4 ................................... Rec. 9A.5 ................................... Art. 11 Note 1–3 ........................ Art. 11 Note 4 ............................ Art. 13.5 .................................... Art. 13.6 .................................... Art. 14.13 ................................... Art. 14.14 ................................... Rec. 16A.1–3 ............................. Rec. 16B.1 ................................. Art. 18 Note 1 ............................ Art. 19.5–19.7 ............................ Art. 22.7 .................................... Art. 25.1 sent. 2 .......................... Art. 29.1 sent. 2 .......................... |
Pre. 3–8
Pre. 11–14 deleted deleted Art. 7.4 Art. 7.3 Art. 7.7–7.8 Art. 9.10 (see also Art. 9.2 and 10.2) Art. 7 Note 1 Art. 7.9–7.10 deleted Art. 9.4–9.9 Art. 9.11–9.23 Art. 9.3 Art. 9 Note 5–7 deleted Rec. 9A.4 Art. 11 Note 2–4 Art. 11 Note 1 and 5 Art. 13 Note 1 deleted Art. 14.14 Art. 14.16 incl. in Art. 16.3 Rec. 16A.1 Art. 18 Note 3 Art. 19.6–19.8 Art. 22 Note 2 deleted Art. 30.1 |
xxiii |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xxiii –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Re-numbering |
Rec. 29A.1
.................................
Art. 30.1–30.5 ............................ Art. 30 Note 1–2 ........................ Rec. 30A.1–3 ............................. Art. 31.2 .................................... Art. 31 Note 1 ............................ Art. 32.1(a–c) ............................ Art. 32.1(d–e) ............................ Art. 32.2–32.4 ............................ Art. 32.5–32.6 ............................ Art. 32.7–32.8 ............................ Art. 32.9–32.10 .......................... Art. 32 Note 1 ............................ Rec. 32A.1 ................................. Rec. 32B.1 ................................. Rec. 32C.1 ................................. Rec. 32D.1–3 ............................. Rec. 32E.1 ................................. Rec. 32F.1 .................................. Art. 33.1 ..................................... Art. 33.2–33.7 ............................ Art. 33.8 ..................................... Art. 33.9–33.12 .......................... Art. 33 Note 1 ............................ Art. 33 Note 2 ............................ Art. 33 Note 3 ............................ Rec. 33A.1 ................................. Art. 34.1–34.2 ............................ Art. 34 Note 1 ............................ Rec. 34A.1 ................................. Art. 35.1–35.5 ............................ Art. 36.1 ..................................... Art. 36.2 ..................................... Art. 36.3 ..................................... Rec. 36A.1 ................................. Art. 37.1–37.7 ............................ Art. 37 Note 1–4 ........................ Rec. 37A.1 ................................. Art. 38.1 (amended) ................... Art. 38.2 ..................................... Art. 39.1 ..................................... Rec. 39A.1 ................................. Art. 40.1 ..................................... Art. 40 Note 1 ............................ Art. 41.1–41.3(a–b) ................... Art. 41.3(c) ................................ Art. 41 Note 1 ............................ Art. 41 Note 2 ............................ |
deleted
Art. 30.4–30.8 Art. 30 Note 3–4 Rec. 30A.2–4 Art. 31.3 deleted Art. 32.1 Art. 38.1 Art. 38.2–38.4 Art. 38.13–38.14 Art. 32.2–32.3 Art. 34.1–34.2 Art. 32 Note 3 Rec. 38A.1 Rec. 38B.1 Rec. 38C.1 Rec. 38D.1–3 Rec. 38E.1 Rec. 34A.1 Art. 35.2 Art. 41.3–41.8 deleted Art. 37.6–37.9 Art. 41 Note 1 Art. 41 Note 3 Art. 37 Note 1 Rec. 41A.1 Art. 36.1–36.2 Art. 59 Note 3 Rec. 50G.1 Art. 37.1–37.5 Art. 39.1 Art. 44.1 Art. 43.1 Rec. 39A.1 Art. 40.1–40.7 Art. 40 Note 1–4 Rec. 40A.1 Art. 43.2 Art. 43.3 Art. 44.2 Rec. 44A.1 Art. 32.4 Art. 32 Note 2 Art. 38.11 Art. 38.12 Art. 38 Note 1 Art. 38.7 |
xxiv |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xxiv –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Re-numbering |
Art. 42.1–42.3
...........................
Art. 42.4 ................................... Art. 43.1 ................................... Art. 43 Note 1 ........................... Art. 44.1 ................................... Art. 44.2 ................................... Art. 45.1–45.2 ........................... Art. 45.3 ................................... Art. 45.4 sent. 1 ........................ Art. 45.4 sent. 2–3 ..................... Rec. 45A.1 ................................ Rec. 45B.1 ................................ Rec. 45C.1 ................................ Art. 46.4–46.7 ........................... Art. 46 Note 2 ........................... Art. 46 Note 3–4 ........................ Art. 59.1 .................................... Art. 59.2–59.7 ............................ Art 59 Note 1 ............................. Rec. 59A.1–3 ............................. Art. 60.11–60.12 ........................ Rec. 60G.1(a)(3) ........................ Rec. 60G.1(b) ............................. Rec. 60G Note 1 ......................... Art. H.10.2 ................................. Art. H.10.3 ................................. Art. H.10 Note 1 ........................ |
Art. 38.5–38.7
Art. 38.9 Art. 35.1 Art. 35 Note 1 Art. 38.8 Art. 38.10 Art. 33.1–33.2 Art. 53 Note 1 Art. 45 Note 2 Art. 45.1 Rec. 32A.1 Rec. 31B.1 Rec. 31C.1 Art. 46.5–46.8 Art. 46.4 Art. 46.9–46.10 replaced deleted replaced deleted Art. 60.12–60.13 incl. in Rec. 60G.1(b) Rec.60G.1(c), Rec. 60G.1 Ex. 4–5, Rec. 60G Note 1 incl. in Rec. 60G.1(b) Art. H.10 Note 1 Art. H.10.2 Art. H.10 Note 2 |
2. MELBOURNE CODE TO VIENNA CODE
Pre. 2
.........................................
Pre. 3–8 ..................................... Pre. 9–10 ................................... Pre. 11–14 ................................. Art. 6.9–6.11 .............................. Art. 6 Note 3–4 .......................... Art. 7.3 ...................................... Art. 7.4 ...................................... Art. 7.7–7.8 ................................ Art. 7.9–7.10 .............................. Art. 7 Note 1 .............................. Rec. 8B.3 ................................... Art. 9.3 ...................................... Art. 9.4–9.9 ................................ Art. 9.10 ................................... Art. 9.11–9.23 ............................ |
new
Pre. 2–7 new Pre. 8–11 new new Art. 7.4 Art. 7.3 Art. 7.7 Art. 7.10–7.11 Art. 7.9 new Art. 9 Note 2 Art. 9.3–9.8 Art. 7.8 Art. 9.9–9.21 |
xxv |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xxv –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Re-numbering |
Art. 9 Note 2–4
.........................
Art. 9 Note 5–7 .......................... Rec. 9A.4 .................................. Rec. 9C.1 .................................. Rec. 9D.1 .................................. Art. 11 Note 1 ........................... Art. 11 Note 2–4 ....................... Art. 11 Note 5 ........................... Art. 13 Note 1 ........................... Art. 14.13 .................................. Art. 14.14 .................................. Art. 14.15 .................................. Art. 14.16 .................................. Art. 16.3 (in part) ...................... Rec. 16A.1 ................................ Art. 18 Note 1–2 ....................... Art. 18 Note 3 ........................... Art. 19.5 .................................... Art. 19.6–19.8 ........................... Art. 22 Note 2 ........................... Art. 29.2–29.3 ............................ Art. 29 Note 1 ........................... Rec. 29A.1–2 ........................... Art. 30.1 ................................... Art. 30.2–30.3 ........................... Art. 30.4–30.8 ........................... Art. 30 Note 1–2 ....................... Art. 30 Note 3–4 ....................... Rec. 30A.1 ................................ Rec. 30A.2–4 ............................ Art. 31.2 .................................... Art. 31.3 .................................... Rec. 31B.1 ................................. Rec. 31C.1 ................................. Art. 32.1 .................................... Art. 32.2–32.3 ........................... Art. 32.4 .................................... Art. 32 Note 1 ............................ Art. 32 Note 2 ............................ Art. 32 Note 3 ............................ Rec. 32A.1 ................................. Art. 33.1–33.2 ............................ Art. 34.1–34.2 ............................ Rec. 34A.1 ................................. Art. 35.1 .................................... Art. 35.2 .................................... Art. 35 Note 1 ............................ Art. 36.1–36.2 ............................ |
new
Art. 9 Note 3–5 Rec. 9A.5 new new Art. 11 Note 4 sent. 1 Art. 11 Note 1–3 Art. 11 Note 4 sent. 2 Art. 13.5 new Art. 14.13 new Art. 14.14 Rec. 16A.1–3 Rec. 16B.1 new Art. 18 Note 1 new Art. 19.5–19.7 Art. 22.7 new new new Art. 29.1 sent. 2 new Art. 30.1–30.5 new Art. 30 Note 1–2 new Rec. 30A.1–3 new Art. 31.2 Rec. 45B.1 Rec. 45C.1 Art. 32.1(a–c) Art. 32.7–32.8 Art. 40.1 new Art. 40 Note 1 Art. 32 Note 1 Rec. 45A.1 Art. 45.1–45.2 Art. 32.9–32.10 Rec. 32F.1 Art. 43.1 Art. 33.1 Art. 43 Note 1 Art. 34.1–34.2 |
xxvi |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xxvi –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Re-numbering |
Art. 37.1–37.5
............................
Art. 37.6–37.9 ............................ Art. 37 Note 1 ............................ Art. 38.1 .................................... Art. 38.2–38.4 ............................ Art. 38.5–38.6 ............................ Art. 38.7 .................................... Art. 38.8 .................................... Art. 38.9 .................................... Art. 38.10 .................................. Art. 38.11 .................................. Art. 38.12 .................................. Art. 38.13–38.14 ........................ Art. 38 Note 1 ............................ Rec. 38A.1 ................................. Rec. 38B.1 ................................. Rec. 38C.1 ................................. Rec. 38D.1–3 ............................. Rec. 38E.1 ................................. Art. 39.1 .................................... Art. 39.2 .................................... Rec. 39A.1 ................................. Art. 40.1–40.7 ............................ Art. 40 Note 1–4 ........................ Rec. 40A.1 ................................. Rec. 40A.2–4 ............................. Art. 41.1 .................................... Art. 41.2 .................................... Art. 41.3–41.8 ............................ Art. 41 Note 1 ............................ Art. 41 Note 2 ............................ Art. 41 Note 3 ............................ Rec. 41A.1 ................................. Art. 42.1–42.3 ............................ Art. 42 Note 1 ............................ Rec. 42A.1–2 ............................. Art. 43.1 .................................... Art. 43.2 .................................... Art. 43.3 .................................... Art. 43 Note 1 ............................ Art. 44.1 .................................... Art. 44.2 .................................... Art. 44 Note 1 ............................ Rec. 44A.1 ................................. Art. 45.1 .................................... Art. 45 Note 1 ............................ Art. 45 Note 2 ............................ Art. 46.4 .................................... |
Art. 35.1–35.5
Art. 33.9–33.12 Art. 33 Note 3 Art. 32.1(d–e) Art. 32.2–32.4 Art. 42.1–42.2 Art. 41 Note 2, Art. 42.3 Art. 44.1 Art. 42.4 Art. 44.2 Art. 41.1–41.3(a–b) Art. 41.3(c) Art. 32.5–32.6 Art. 41 Note 1 Rec. 32A.1 Rec. 32B.1 Rec. 32C.1 Rec. 32D.1–3 Rec. 32E.1 Art. 36.1 new Rec. 36A.1 Art. 37.1–37.7 Art. 37 Note 1–4 Rec. 37A.1 new new (from Art. 33 and 41) new (from Art. 41) Art. 33.2–33.7 Art. 33 Note 1 new Art. 33 Note 2 Rec. 33A.1 new new new Art. 36.3 Art. 38.1 (amended) Art. 38.2 new Art. 36.2 Art. 39.1 new Rec. 39A.1 Art. 45.4 sent. 2–3 new Art. 45.4 sent. 1 Art. 46 Note 2 |
xxvii |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xxvii –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Re-numbering |
Art. 46.5–46.8
............................
Art. 46.9–46.10 .......................... Art. 46 Note 2–3 ........................ Art. 48.2–48.3 ............................ Rec. 50G.1 ................................. Art. 53 Note 1 ............................ Art. 56.3–56.4 ............................ Rec. 56A.1 ................................. Art. 57.2 .................................... Art. 59.1 .................................... Art. 59 Note 1 ........................... Art. 59 Note 2 ........................... Art. 59 Note 3 ........................... Art. 60.11 ................................. Art. 60.12–60.13 ....................... Rec. 60G.1(b) ........................... Rec. 60G.1(c) ........................... Rec. 60G Note 1 ........................ Art. 62 Note 2 ........................... Art. H.10.2 ................................ Art. H.10 Note 1 ........................ Art. H.10 Note 2 ........................ |
Art. 46.4–46.7
Art. 46 Note 3–4 new new Rec. 34A.1 Art. 45.3 new new new replacement replacement new Art. 34 Note 1 new Art. 60.11–60.12 Rec. 60G.1(a)(3), Rec. 60G Note 1 Rec. 60G.1(b) sent. 1–4 Rec. 60G.1(b) last sent. new Art. H.10.3 Art. H.10.2 Art. H.10 Note 1 |
xxviii |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xxviii –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Important dates |
IMPORTANT DATES IN THE CODE
DATES UPON WHICH PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF THE CODE
BECOME OR CEASE TO BE EFFECTIVE
1 May
4 Aug 1 Jan 31 Dec 31 Dec 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 31 Dec 1 Jan 1 Jan |
1753
1789 1801 1801 1820 1821 1848 1886 1887 1890 1892 1900 1908 1912 1935 1953 1958 1973 1990 1996 2001 2007 2011 2012 2013 |
Art. 7.8,
13.1(a),
(c),
(d),
(e)
Art. 13.1 (a), (c) Art. 13.1(b) Art. 13.1(d) Art. 13.1(f) Art. 13.1(d) Art. 13.1(e) Art, 13.1(e) Art. 37.2 Art. 37.4 Art. 13.1(e) Art. 13.1(e) Art. 38.7, 38.8 Art. 20.2, 43.2 Art. 39.1 Art. 30.4, 30.6, 30.7, 30.8, 36.2, 37.1, 37.3, 38.13, 41.3, 41.4, 41.5, 41.6, 41.8, Art. 40.1, 44.1, 44.2 Art. 30.6, 33.1 Art. 9.22, 40.6, 40.7 Art. 43.1 Art. 7.10, 9.15, 9.23, 43.3 Art. 40.4, 41.5 Art. 39.1, 44.1 Art. 29.1, 39.2 Art. 42.1, 57.2, 59.1 |
ARTICLES INVOLVING DATES APPLICABLE TO THE
MAIN TAXONOMIC GROUPS
All groups
Algae |
Art. 7.10,
9.20,
9.22,
9.23,
20.2,
29.1,
30.4,
30.6,
30.7,
30.8,
33.1, 36.2, 37.1, 37.2, 37.3, 37.4, 38.7, 38.8, 38.13, 39.2, 40.1, 40.6, 40.7, 41.3, 41.4, 41.5, 41.6, 41.8 Art. 7.8, 13.1(e), 40.4, 44.1, 44.2 |
xxix |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xxix –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
Important dates |
Bryophytes
Fossils Fungi Vascular plants |
Art. 7.8,
13.1(b),
(c),
39.1,
40.4
Art. 7.8, 9.15, 13.1(f), 43.1, 43.2, 43.3 Art. 13.1(d), 39.1, 40.4, 42.1, 57.2, 59.1 Art. 13.1(a), 39.1, 40.4 |
ARTICLES DEFINING THE DATES OF CERTAIN WORKS
Art. 13.1(a-f) (see also
Art. 13 Note 1)
xxx |
__________________________________________________________________
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012 — Melbourne Code
– xxx –
text: © 2012, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
__________________________________________________________________
[ to body of the 2012, Melbourne Code ]