When Taxon was initiated in 1951 it was, among other things, to provide a single place for (previously scattered) proposals of nomina conservanda. Yet so far no guidance on how to write such proposals has been provided, and although certain traditions have built up through the years the format and especially the length of proposals have greatly varied.
With the approval by the Tokyo Congress of Art. 14 Prop. B, to delete the second sentence of Art. 14.2, it is now possible to propose conservation of names of species virtually without restriction. Furthermore, following approval of a modified version of Art. 69 Prop. B, the option now exists to reject "any name that would cause a disadvantageous nomenclatural change", irrespective of rank. Proposals to that effect "must be accompanied by a detailed statement of the cases both for and against rejection, including considerations of typification".
The Nomenclature Section has instructed the permanent nomenclature committees "to make full use of the options that the Code now provides", and at the Section's request the Congress resolved to "urge botanists ... to avoid displacing well established names for purely nomenclatural reasons". It is therefore safe to predict a substantial increase in numbers of conservation and rejection proposals in the years to come.
In the interest of expediting the work of nomenclature committees and of minimizing the inflational impact of an unbounded flood of proposals on Taxon's nomenclature column, we have felt that the time had now come to state some parameters for proposals and a rationale for their conciseness and efficiency.
The available options
Anyone considering submission of a proposal should first read carefully Art. 14 and 69 (to become Art. 57) of the Code, and the text of proposals accepted by the Tokyo Congress. [Pending publication of the Tokyo Code, advance copies of the new conservation/rejection provisions can be obtained from the Nomenclature Editor, or from the Editors of Taxon.] Authors of proposals should bear in mind the three options that the Code offers, and their respective advantages and limitations.
(1) Conservation of a name against all other names, whether listed or not (unless a competing name is itself conserved, when normal priority prevails). This option is restricted to some family names, as of Bryophyta and Spermatophyta, now listed in App. IIB.
(2a) Conservation of a name against all homonyms and homotypic synonyms, but only against those heterotypic synonyms listed as rejected (including combinations based on them). This is the general case (App. IIA for family names; App. IIIA for generic names; App. IIIB for species names). By conservation, the type of a name can be changed from the element that would have to serve as nomenclatural type under the rules to a different element, even to one that was not part of the original material (there is no longer a need to conserve an artificial later homonym", from a later author and date, in such cases). Even in cases when the listed type of a conserved name stands irrespective of conservation, it is in effect conserved and can be changed only by an amendment proposal. The spelling and the grammatical gender can also be conserved but this must be explicitly stated. The authorship, date and place of valid publication of a name cannot be conserved and, as listed, they are liable to editorial correction whenever they turn out to be inaccurate.
(2b) Rejection of a name against a name previously or simultaneously listed as conserved. Often the primary intent of a proposal is to get rid of a name that threatens another legitimate name, and if so, options 2 and 3 might both work. It is then important to consider their respective advantages and limitations. Names rejected as heterotypic synonyms of a conserved name remain legitimate but cannot be used as long as their type is considered to belong to the same taxon as the type of the corresponding conserved name. When taxonomy is still in dispute, it is sometimes desirable to reject a name when applied to a broadly defined taxon but to keep it available for use in a special, narrow sense, which cannot be effected by option 3. However, the type of a rejected name, even when listed, has no protected status and its typification is open to challenge. Therefore, rejection under option 2b is not a safe way to get rid of a syn onymous name as long as its typification is in dispute. While a homotypic rejected synonym is stone dead (as are all combinations based on it, at any rank), this holds true only as long as its typification (and homotypic status) is not open to challenge.
Option 2b provides for some flexibility as to the extent of rejection: if a name listed as a rejected synonym is a basionym then all combinations based on it (irrespective of rank) are similarly rejected; but if it is a later combination, then other combitations with the same type and epithet are not rejected. The name of the tomato, as listed in App. IIIB, provides an example of how this works. [Incidentally, the Code does not preclude 2b-kind rejection of names at ranks other than species, genus or family, if they are the basionym of a name that competes with a conserved name.]
A name can also be rejected as an earlier homonym of a conserved name. In that case it remains legitimate and available as basionym for other combina tions. Confusingly similar names are treated as homonyms under Art. 64.3, and the older of them can be rejected against the younger. By so doing, option 2 can provide a definitive answer to the question of whether two similar names are indeed confusable.
(3) Straightforward rejection of a name (App. IV), irrespective of rank. This pro cedure makes the typification question irrelevant since a rejected name is banned from use irrespective of the identity of its type. The now accepted wording of the rule suggests that if a name has a basionym it is always the latter that must be listed as rejected, so that all names with the same type and epithet will also be rejected, irrespective of the taxonomic context (rank, circumscription, and position of the taxon). Some committee may, if the need arises, want to consider whether a more flexible interpretation of the rule (rejection of a later combination alone) is possible.
Options 1 and 2 are governed by Art. 14 of the Code; option 3, by Art. 69 (or new Art. 57). A proposer should always be clear about what Article underlies the proposal. Note that Art. 57 no longer covers a conservation option since this has become unnecessary under the more generous terms of Art. 14. The former Art. 69.3 has therefore been deleted by the Tokyo Congress.
For efficiency it is desirable that proposals be restricted to at most two printed pages (c. 1200 words), preferably to a single one. To make this possible, the editorial standard for proposals will henceforth deviate from the usual Taxon standard, in particular by the way in which literature references are cited. No "Literature cited" list will be provided at the end, but instead abbreviated citations will be given parenthetically in the running text. They will comprise the abbreviated journal title (as in B-P-H) or book title (as in TL-2, or by analogy), followed by the page reference and date. (Prop. (1085) in this Taxon issue may serve as an example of the new citation format.) If a proposal turns out to be too long, the Nomenclature Editor may suggest publication of a separate (reviewed) background paper, or submission of some of the less essential background documentation directly to the Committee Secretary concerned, or something more Procrustean.
Begin with the formal proposal in the format that presumably will appear in the appropriate Appendix upon approval. Always list the proposed type of name to be conserved (these will be neither holotypes nor lectotypes nor neotypes, but just [conserved] types) and of synonyms proposed for rejection against it (with type status and first type designation duly quoted, unless they are holotypified). Listing a definite type for names to be rejected as earlier homonyms or under Art. 69 is desirable but not mandatory.
Proposers should then first explain why the proposal is technically necessary. They will normally give basic information on the taxon (or taxa) and names involved, including considerations of typification and, often, dates. Be brief: the Committee need not necessarily know the full intricacy of historical background and the varying effects of applying the provisions of past Codes (the rules being retroactive unless otherwise stated). Do, however, point out the possible uncertainties of interpretation of the rules, especially if under a different assumption the proposal would become meaningless. Do not fail to mention the possible effect of information likely to have been overlooked (e.g., earlier lectotypifications).
The Code requires a "statement of the cases both for and against conservation/ rejection". The rationale of conservation is "to avoid disadvantageous changes in the nomenclature of families, genera, and species" and to retain "those names which best serve stability of nomenclature". Avoidance of disadvantageous nomenclatural change is, also, the rationale for rejection under Art. 69. Proposers must, therefore, outline the consequences of both adoption and rejection of their proposal. If (as is mostly the case) different options to handle the matter exist, proposers should explain their implications and state the reasons for their own preference.
Document current (and past) usages of all names involved. State the approximate number of works that use the names in any given sense, and list up to 6 examples for each (preferably standard floras, revisions or reference works, documenting "importance" and geographical coverage).
Before undergoing the trouble of writing a proposal, causing work to yourself and many others, consider its merits and chances carefully. True, the Nomenclature Section at Tokyo has made it quite clear that indulging in futile name changes in the future is reprehensible unless the new conservation/rejection avenues have previously been explored and found to be unhelpful. However, the situation will usually be different when such changes have been enacted for good reasons prior to the Tokyo Congress, before the present generous options came to exist. It is unlikely that Committees will view sympathetically proposals to reverse actions of the past done in perfectly good faith and in compliance with the nomenclatural rules. There may be cases where recent changes are so disturbing that they do warrant reversal (which will be more easily accepted if supported by the author of the change), but these will require particularly thorough documentation of the case, both for and against the proposal.
We wish to thank the Secretaries of the Permanent Committees, and some Committee members who commented directly to us, for their careful consideration of the above options and for their sound advice. We have taken it into consideration as best we could, but have not had the opportunity to discuss with them the full text of these guidelines.
IAPT - Main menu | The Association | Taxon | Nomenclature | Regnum Vegetabile | Projects
© by International Association
for Plant Taxonomy. WWW-Editor
Effective publication date: 16 October 1997