A GUIDE TO BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE
A TENNESSEE TUTORIAL
RONALD H. PETERSEN
(WITH TECHNICAL HELP FROM KAREN W. HUGHES)
|
"I don’t rejoice in insects at all," Alice explained
---------"But I can tell you the names of some of them"
"Of course they answer to their names," the Gnat remarked carelessly. "I never knew them to do it" "What’s the use of their having names," the Gnat said, "if they won’t answer to them?" "No use to them," said Alice; "but it’s useful to the people that name them, I suppose. If not, why do things have names at all?" Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll |
Welcome to the Tennessee Tutorial on Botanical Nomenclature. The material in the tutorial is the result of a course in the subject taught for many years. The original course was taught by M.A. Donk during his year at Tennessee in 1969-1970, but as the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) has changed, so the material of the course has also.
What materials are necessary to use the tutorial? Only the latest edition of the ICBN [Tokyo Code, available from Koeltz Scieitific Books, D-61453 Konigstein, Germany: also available from Lubrecht & Cramer, P.O. Box 3110. Port Jervis, NY. Members of the International Association of Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) receive a discount, and membership information can be obtained from the Botany Department of the Smithsonian Institution]. If you have access to a fine botanical library, you might wish to consult "Guide to the Practice of Herbarium Taxonomy," "Index Herbariorum," "Guide for the Determination of Types," and other volumes in the Regnum Vegetabile series of publications by the IAPT. The ICBN is also available on line at http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/
The introductory menu generally deals with subjects, which are generally grouped as Divisions, Chapters and Sections of the ICBN. Thus, if the exigent problem deals with typification, most appropriate material can be found in Division II, Chapter II, Section 2. But even a cursory reading of the Articles in that section will reveal that material regarding types (note the different between "types" and "typification" - one is a specimen, the other is a process) is scattered through several other parts of the ICBN.
A NOTE ABOUT EXAMPLES:
Over many years, for pedagogical reasons I have perpetrated fictitious examples dealing with "Rosa," its species "Rosa alba," and many other taxa in this "fictitious" genus. The names have been placed in all sorts of situations and problems. In the main, this device has served better than actual complex examples cited in the Code and is continued here. Although the genus Rosa exists, ALL examples below based on it are fictitious.
Not so with examples from mycology. This is my field of research, and all examples of fungal names are real – taken from my own research or from the literature. I apologize to workers in other groups (especially because the fungi are not plants), but the nomenclature which governs fungi is the same as that for plants, and the examples hold true throughout.
I. As the famous botanical nomenclaturalist Marinus Anton Donk said, "Nomenclature is the handmaiden of taxonomy." As such, taxonomy and nomenclature should not be confused even though they have evolved together.
For many years, taxonomists performed tasks which now have been formalized under the terms "grouping" and "ranking." Essentially, these tasks require that all pertinent specimens be gathered (whether fresh or preserved) and placed into groups based on their taxonomic characters. After all specimens have been sorted, the various groups must be ranked. Some will constitute species, others will be given variety or form rank. Once all grouping and ranking has been completed (that is, when taxonomy is finished), then the hunt for the correct name for each group may start.
II. There is a certain urgency about taxonomy and nomenclature. cfr.
Raven, P.H., B. Berlin, and D.E. Breedlove. 1971. Science 174: 1210-1213.
III. All "rules" and "codes" state clearly that there can be but one "correct" name for each individual plant. While this is technically incorrect (correctness depends on circumscription, position and rank), it is a principle to which we adhere.
IV. History of nomenclature.
A. Raven et al. refer to "folk taxonomy" in which a shallow hierarchy is accepted by non-specialists. Ex: mushroom amateurs.
B. Names of plants began to be formalized when they were written down, and later printed.
C. Even prior to Linnaeus, there was scrupulous accuracy in attributing names to authors, so that some continuity could be followed. There was also the ethic of giving personal credit where it was due (see, for example the citations by the Bauhins, Caesalpino, etc.). But plant names consisted of all descriptors, so that the "diagnosis" and the name were one and the same. This construction is now known as a "phrase name."
D. Tournefort (1700) first used a single name for genus, followed by a phrase name for species.
E. Linnaeus (1735) followed Tournefort. Within a short time, however, he shortened the entire phrase name by using one word for the genus (the "nomen differentium") and a second descriptor for the species epithet, the "nomen trivium." The system was never intended to be "natural," but only served as a memory aid. Linnaeus formalized the system in 1753 (Species Plantarum).
F. Jussieu (1789) added the category of "familia" to the extant system of genus and species ranks. All Codes have dealt with these ranks (and their subordinates).
G. Linnaeus (1751, Philosophica Botanica) described a simple set of nomenclatural rules, but did not use them until 1753. Prior to 1751, there was no code of nomenclature to either accept or reject.
H. Motives of innocence, pride, national honor, ignorance led to overt introduction of names for previously named plants (homonyms; superfluous names). Often up to 50% of names employed were nomina superflua.
I. The first international botanical congress was held in Paris in 1864. There, Alphonse DeCandolle was commissioned to formulate a set of rules ("lois").
J. At the next (second) congress, also in Paris in 1867, the "lois" were promulgated and accepted, and soon were translated into English as "Laws of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the International Botanical Congress held at Paris in August, 1867, together with an Historical Introduction and Commentary." See: Amer. J. Sci. II, 46: 63-77. 1868.
K. The "laws" stated that nomenclature was to "start" when binomial names were begun, thus linking the Linnaean system to nomenclature. But whether to date nomenclature from 1735 (Linnaeus, Flora Lapponica) or 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum) was not explicitly stated. Americans and most Europeans used 1753.
L. Otto Kuntze (1891) published part 1 of Revisio Generum Plantarum using 1735. In the several parts, Kuntze changed over 100,000 names. He eventually adopted 1737 as starting date.
M. In 1892, the Genoa Congress commissioned the "Committee of 30" to solve this problem. All but two resigned or died forthwith.
N. The Botanical Club of AAAS, in 1892, in Rochester, adopted a modified Paris "Laws," explicitly accepting 1753 as the starting date for botanical nomenclature.
O. At the Madison meetings of 1893, Nathaniel Lord Britton read a paper clearly delineating the trichotomy: 1) Linnaeus, 1735; 2) Linnaeus, 1753; and 3) later dates proposed.
P. The Paris-1900 Congress declared itself incompetent to deal with nomenclatural problems, and referred them to the next scheduled Vienna Congress of 1905, but declared that botanical congresses should be held every five years (as they still are).
Q. The AAAS Botanical Club met in Philadelphia in 1904, and adopted the renegade "American Code of Botanical Nomenclature" which deviated from the older, general Laws in: 1) priority was to start in 1753, not any other date; and 2) every taxon was to be based on a "type," which was invariably linked to that name.
R. Kuntze and Engler fought at the Vienna Congress of 1904, but 1753 was finally adopted as starting date, and much of Kuntze's prodigious work was discarded. No statement on the "type method" was adopted..
S. Nomenclature Commission of AAAS, 1906, in Philadelphia, added the "first species rule" to the American Code. Separation from Europeans was now blatant. Most delegates were from the New York Botanical Garden and Columbia University, and they voted as a block.
T. The Brussels Congress (1910) adopted the following: 1) in order to publish the name of a new taxon, a Latin description was required; 2) established a list of nomina conservanda and a process for conserving names; 3) multiple starting dates. No statement about "type method" was included.
U. No congresses were held between 1910 and 1924 due to the disruption through World War I. English botanists convened the post-war English Congress (not an international Congress) at Cambridge in 1924. There, with most delegates from the British Isles, the "type method" was recommended for adoption, but the English decided against the first species rule. No formal document was issued.
V. The "International" Congress convened in Ithaca, 1926. Several papers were read, but no real or valid documents were issued.
W. The Cambridge Congress of 1930 was truly international. In a compromise, it adopted the "type method" pushed by the Americans, while the Americans dropped the "first species rule." The resulting Code was the first international document with universal approval.
X. In Amsterdam, 1935, the Congress adopted English as first language of the Code. No further congresses convened through the war years.
Y. By 1950, the United Nations had been born, and Botanical Nomenclature was sheltered under its aegis. An "old boys' network" had been established, and was convened as a "rump session" at Utrecht preceding the Stockholm Congress. Dr. J. Lanjouw became the singular leader, and the Dutch were a heavy influence. The Stockholm Congress adopted all changes suggested by the Utrecht Conference, and established the International Association of Plant Taxonomists, supported by International Union of Biological Societies (IUBS) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNESCO). The journal Taxon was adopted as the official organ.
Z. Subsequent years saw the rise of Frans Stafleu in the late years of Lanjouw. Subsequent Congresses (Paris, 1954; Montreal, 1959; Edinburgh, 1964; Seattle, 1969; Leningrad, 1975; Sydney, 1981; Berlin, 1986) fine-tuned the Code, but with no major disruption.
AA. All languages other than English were deleted in Berlin (1988), and the previously separate "Guide for the Determination of Types" was co-opted into the Code itself.
BB. The present Code (Tokyo, 1993) introduced "epitype;" incorporated name rejection into existing articles, and significantly enlarged Appendix V.
Agaricus