Synopsis of Proposals on Botanical Nomenclature – St Louis 1999. A review of the proposals concerning the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature submitted to the XVI International Botanical Congress

as published in Taxon, vol. 48: 69-129 (1999) [but see Note at the end]

Werner Greuter (Rapporteur-général) & David L. Hawksworth (Vice-rapporteur)

Notice

Each personal member of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy is entitled to participate in the Preliminary Mail Vote on nomenclature proposals, as stated in Division III of the Code. No institutional votes are allowed in the mail ballot. Authors of proposals to amend the Code and members of permanent nomenclature committees are also entitled to participate. All persons entitled to vote are receiving a voting form by separate mail.

The voting forms (ballots) should be returned to the Recorder (Dr Fred R. Barrie, Botany Department, Field Museum, Chicago, IL 60605, U.S.A.) by 31 May 1999, so that they may be included in the tabulation which will be made available to the members of the Nomenclature Section.

The sessions of the Nomenclature Section, which will take definitive action on proposals, will be held at the Missouri Botanical Garden, St Louis, from Monday, 26 July (9.00 hours) to Friday, 30 July 1999.

Each registered member of the Congress is entitled to enrol as a member of the Nomenclature Section. Congress registration as well as registration for the Nomenclature Section will start on Sunday, 25 July, at 13.00 hours. Each member of the Nomenclature Section is entitled to one personal vote in the sessions. Personal votes can neither be transferred nor accumulated; a single person never receives more than one personal vote. A member of the Nomenclature Section may be the official delegate of more than one institution, but no one person will be allowed more than 15 votes (including his personal vote). Official delegates are required to submit their credentials and to collect their voting cards when registering for the Nomenclature Section. Institutions are being advised of their votes in February 1999, in accordance with Division III of the Code.

Introduction

This Synopsis repeats the exact wording of the proposals, along with reference to the published justification. The numbered sequence of proposals extends to 215. The comments by the Rapporteurs have been drafted during a working meeting in Berlin, 8-12 December 1992. The Rapporteurs have endeavoured to outline the foreseeable consequences of each of the proposals, irrespective of their personal opinions on desirability. The comments are the result of a consensus between the Rapporteur and the Vice-rapporteur, and both have equal responsibility for them. Differences of opinion, if any, are recorded.

As noted on the ballot, there are four voting options: "yes", "no", "ed.c.", and "sp.c."; all proposals accepted by the Congress will be reviewed by the Editorial Committee prior to the production of the next edition of the Code, and any necessary editorial changes will be made; consequently, a "yes" vote only implies approval in principle of the proposal, not necessarily of its exact wording. Unless otherwise noted, an "ed.c." vote instructs the Editorial Committee to consider inclusion in the Code of material in the proposal but does not necessarily require it to do so. A "sp.c." vote refers the proposal to a Special Committee to review the matter, either during the Nomenclature Section meetings, or, more likely, prior to the next Congress; it implies the desire to establish such a Committee. In order to make the result of the ballot as meaningful as possible, instructions have been added in several cases as to how special expressions of opinion will be interpreted.

All proposals that relate to particular groups have been referred to the Permanent Nomenclatural Committees for those groups (Code, Div. III.2) in order that they may give their opinions prior to the meetings of the Nomenclature Section. When these opinions (or those of a relevant Special Committee) are already known, the votes have been included and tabulated as follows: the first digit stands for the "yes" votes (sometimes with additional [+] "ed.c." votes), the second for the "no" votes, the third (when present) for abstentions or "continue discussion" votes. Such votes were tabulated only if more than half of the committee members expressed an opinion.

Some presently active Special Committees have either submitted or evaluated pertinent proposal and their vote, when known, is similarly given. Only those proposals that were favoured by at least 60 % of the voting Committee members are included in that Committee’s Report as submitted in the Committee’s name.

The proposals are arranged in the sequence of the provisions of the Code that they affect, general proposals being listed first. Within each of the provisions, the proposals have been lettered sequentially in the order in which the Rapporteurs believe they might usefully be discussed by the Section. Needless to say, the Section or its Chairman are completely free to adopt another sequence for their deliberations.

Examples, Notes and paragraphs of Articles or Recommendations proposed as new have been given unique numbers in this Synopsis to permit direct and unambiguous reference. Items that would precede the present first item were given the number 0, those placed at the end received a running-on number, and those to be intercalated received bis, ter, quater, quinquies, sexies, or septies numbers. This numbering system is not of course intended to bind the future Editorial Committee in any way.

Acknowledgements

The Rapporteurs are indebted to Brigitte Zimmer for extracting the relevant proposal texts from the electronic Taxon files and to Patricia Taylor for keyboarding and editing some of their comments.

General proposals

Prop. A (10 – Comm. Electronic Publishing in Taxon 47: 176) Authorise the General Committee to renew the mandate of the Special Committee on Electronic Publishing and Databasing, or to appoint a new such Special Committee.

Prop. B (188 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 949) Throughout the Code, substitute "published" for "effectively published".

Prop. C (189 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 949) Throughout the Code, substitute "precedence" or "date", as appropriate, for "priority", so as to restrict the use of "priority" to precedence by date.

Prop. D (190 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) Throughout the Code, substitute "established" or "establishment" for "validly published" or "valid publication", respectively.

Prop. E (191 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) Throughout the Code, substitute "acceptable" for "legitimate", and "unacceptable" for "illegitimate".

Prop. F (192 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) Throughout the Code, substitute "accepted" for "correct" where it relates to the nomenclatural status of a name.

Prop. G (193 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) Throughout the Code, substitute "name-bearing type" for "nomenclatural type".

Prop. H (194 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) Throughout the Code, substitute "nominal taxon" for "name and type".

Prop. I (195 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) Throughout the Code, substitute "homotypic" for "nomenclatural" in relation to the nomenclatural status of synonyms.

Prop. J (196 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) Throughout the Code, substitute "heterotypic" for "taxonomic" in relation to the nomenclatural status of synonyms.

Prop. K (197 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) Throughout the Code, substitute "replacement name" for "avowed substitute".

Prop. L (198 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) Throughout the Code, substitute "suppressed" for "explicitly rejected".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A The Committee for Electronic Publication was authorised by the Tokyo Congress in view of rapid, ongoing and unpredictable progress in the field of electronic publishing. The Committee could make but few concrete recommendations at this stage, but suggests (13 : 1) renewal of its mandate. This seems a sensible proposition.

Prop. B-L aim at introducing the terminology recommended by the International Committee on Bionomenclature into the botanical Code. This terminology has already been adopted by the International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants (ICNCP). The feasibility of the implementation of these changes of terminology in the botanical Code was demonstrated when the new terms were used in its first translation ever into Italian (Mazzola in Inform. Bot. Ital. 29: 1-132. 1998). The 23^rd General Assembly of IUBS in November 1997 in Taipei resolved, among other things, to "recommend to the relevant bodies responsible for the existing Codes of biological nomenclature the adoption, after due study, of the harmonised nomenclatural terms proposed by the ICB in future editions of existing Codes." So far the new terms have not however been widely discussed, let alone adopted, by zoologists, and some may think it premature to adopt the new terminology before it has been adequately debated by users of other Codes, being reluctant to endorse a change when it does not appear to be strictly speaking necessary. The Rapporteurs want nevertheless to point out that there may be scope for getting rid of the (even among botanists) confused and confusing term "valid" (Prop D), and that it seems useful to make a distinction between the different meanings of the word "priority", as now indiscriminately used in the botanical Code (Prop C; see comment under Art. 59 Prop. A), and between the two kinds of rejection provided for by the Code under Art. 14 and 56, respectively (Prop L). The Special Committee on Harmonisation voted to recommend adoption of the whole set of proposals (5 : 0 on Prop. F; 4 : 0 : 1 on Prop. B, D, E, G, H, K, and L; 3+1 : 0 : 1 on Prop. C; and 4 : 1 on Prop. I and J).

Preamble 8

Prop. A (175 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 946) Replace the beginning of Preamble 8, up to the semicolon, with:

"8. The International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants is prepared under the authority of the International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants and deals with the use and formation of names for special categories in agricultural, forestry and horticultural plant nomenclature."

Prop. B (176 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 947) Delete the end of Preamble 8, after the semicolon, as well as Art. 3.2, 4.4, 11.8, 20 Note 1, Rec. 20A.1(j), and the whole of App. I.

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A provides a more specific wording for the present provision, a wording that is more in accordance with reality than the present one. Although the proposal goes somewhat beyond the minimum change that is anyway necessary (to account for the publication of a revised edition of the ICNCP in 1995), it is still largely editorial.

Prop. B is central to a set of proposals designed to do away with App. I, dealing with hybrid nomenclature, and to incorporate its essential elements into the main body of the Code. The last major revision of these aspects of the Code happened in 1981 at the Sydney Congress, when the Section adopted proposals made by the then Committee for Hybrids. The Sydney changes did not resolve all problems and sometimes created new ones. The Rapporteurs are satisfied that the overall rationale of the proposals is sound and that on the whole they will make the relevant provisions simpler and easier to apply, without negative effects for the stability of extant names. A careful reading of the rationale preceding the proposals is recommended. The proposals were discussed and endorsed by an ad hoc specialist group comprising several members of the International Commission on the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants and/or the Special Committee on Hybrids (the successor of the defunct Permanent Committee for Hybrids).

New Principle

Prop. A (96 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 906) Insert the following Principle ahead of the present Principle I:

"The aim of botanical nomenclature is to provide clear, efficient rules for the creation and maintenance of stable, unambiguous names for botanical taxa. All of the following principles are subordinate to this overriding goal."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A aims to introduce a new Principle into the Code, spelling out the original Candollean philosophy, now hidden away in the Preamble, that nomenclature should be subservient to biological communication and is not an end in itself. Whereas the concrete ways to reach this goal may be in dispute, a consensus can hopefully be reached on the general issue. Adoption of the proposal will have no immediate nomenclatural consequences but may provide a positive signal to the world at large.

Principle I

Prop. A (207 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 951) In Prin. I, insert "(but see Art. 54.1(c)" after "bacteriological nomenclature".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A will become relevant upon adoption of Art. 54 Prop. A, and is favoured (3+1 : 0 : 1) by the Special Committee on Harmonisation. It may be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Principle II

Prop. A (163 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 941) In Prin. II, insert "generally" before "determined".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A intends to account for exceptions to the principle of typification embodied in the current Code. The proposal misunderstands the nature of the Principles, which are baseline statements of policy that may suffer exceptions.

Article 1

Prop. A (98 – Chaloner & al. in Taxon 47: 909) Delete Art. 3.3, 3.4, Art. 3 Note 1, both Examples, and the qualifying clause in the second sentence of Art. 3.1; and add a paragraph to Art. 1, as follows:

"1.2. Taxa normally consist of whole organisms in all their life stages, irrespective of the nature of the corresponding name-bearing types. In some categories of plants, taxa that correspond only to parts of organisms or to definite stages of their life history may, for practical reasons, be recognised and named. Such taxa are termed parataxa. This Code provides, in Art. 59 and 59bis, for names of parataxa in the following categories: fossil non-algal taxa and some fungi with a pleomorphic life history."

Prop. B (97 – Chaloner & al. in Taxon 47: 909) Substitute the term "parataxa" (singular: "parataxon") for "form-taxa" (of pleomorphic fungi) and "form-genera" (of fossil plants), throughout the Code.

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A is part of a set, including Art. 59bis Prop. A (q.v.), designed to bring the provisions of the Code regarding fossil plants into line with current palaeobotanical practice, but it can also stand on its own. Art. 3 Prop. A, which belongs to an alternative set (see under Art. 11 Prop. G), has a similar intent. The proposal has been referred to the Committee for Fossil Plants for an opinion. The Special Committee on Harmonisation supports the proposal (4+1 : 0).

Prop. B introduces the term "parataxa" for what the Code currently but misleadingly designates as "form-taxa". The new term has been used in the same sense in zoology. The proposal belongs to the same set as the foregoing one but can be acted upon independently. The proposal has been referred to the Committee for Fossil Plants for an opinion. The Special Committee on Harmonisation supports the proposal (4 : 0 : 1).

Article 3

Prop. A (04 – Fensome & Skog in Taxon 46: 557) Delete Art. 3.3 and, in Art. 3.1, the clause "except for some fossil plants".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A becomes unnecessary if Art. 1 Prop. A is adopted. It is a corollary to Art. 11 Prop. G (q.v.) and should logically be favoured by those who prefer the latter over Art. 59bis Prop. A. The proposal has been referred to the Committee for Fossil Plants for an opinion.

Article 4

Prop. A (177 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 947) In Art. 4 Note 2, replace "variants of species in cultivation" with "categories of plants used in agriculture, forestry and horticulture"

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A is a logical corollary of Pre. 8 Prop. A. It may be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Article 6

Prop. A (37 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 487) At the end of Art. 6.4, insert the words ", or is made available for use by the side-effect of an act of conservation", and add an Example:

"Ex. 0. When Anisothecium Mitten was published in 1869, it included the previously designated type of Dicranella Müll. Hal. 1856. When Dicranella was conserved with a different, conserved type, Anisothecium became legitimate."

Prop. B (38 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 488) At the end of Art. 6.4, insert the words ", or is made available for use by the side-effect of an act of rejection", delete the phrase "and names illegitimate because of inclusion of the type of a rejected name (Art. 52)" in the last sentence of the introductory matter to Appendix IV, and add a second Example under Art. 6:

"Ex. 0bis. Goodyera R. Br. as published in 1813 included the type of Epipactis Ség. 1754. When Epipactis Ség. was rejected against Epipactis Zinn 1757 (nom. cons.), Goodyera became legitimate."

Prop. C (150 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 937) In Art. 6.5, after "The correct name of a taxon", insert the words "at the rank of family or below".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A and B are concerned with the same general issue and can be combined if both are adopted. Both would undermine the general nomenclatural precept: "once illegitimate, always illegitimate". The proposal appears to reflect the failure, by some members of the Committee for Bryophyta, to fully understand the present provision; however, other Committees have experienced no difficulty in applying the Code correctly. The Rapporteurs are wary of the unforeseen consequences that any retroactively effective change to such a basic provision is bound to have. Such a change would make the conservation of several presently listed names unnecessary while almost certainly requiring the conservation of other names that are not currently threatened.

Prop. C would obviate the present failure of Art. 6.5 to recognise that the principle of priority is not mandatory at ranks higher than family. It is basically editorial.

Article 7

Prop. A (45 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 493) Add a second sentence to Art. 7.10, and an Example:

"A type designation that was published before 1 January 1900 and has not been mentioned in a publication in the 20th century should be treated as not effectively published.

"Ex. 5bis. Margadant detected that Schimper in 1860 had indicated the type of c. 100 generic names of mosses (see Margadant & Geissler in Taxon 44: 613. 1995). Except for the concrete cases in which Schimper’s type designations have been mentioned in print before 1 January 2000, they can be ignored."

Prop. B (71 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 884) Add a paragraph after Art. 7.11:

"7.11bis. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.13 and 10.5), on or after 1 January 2001, designation of a type for a name that is not typified by original designation or indication is achieved only if the typification statement includes the phrase "here designated", or equivalent wording."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A is well intentioned, but the proposed rule would be exceedingly difficult to apply in practice. How can one ever be certain that a given type designation is not mentioned anywhere in literature spanning a whole century? Further, the proposed starting date, 1 January 1900, is fairly arbitrary.

Prop. B would eliminate for the future the risk of "incidental type designations" which has often caused difficulties in the past. As the proposed rule would not be retroactive, no negative side-effects are to be feared. The proposal is made (4 : 2) by the Committee on Lectotypification.

Article 8

Prop. A (66 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 882) Replace Art. 8.1 by the following text, and add four Examples:

"8.1. The type (holotype, lectotype or neotype) of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is a single specimen conserved in one herbarium or institution, or an illustration. A specimen is a gathering, or part of a gathering, of a single species or infraspecific taxon collected at one time. A specimen may consist of a single plant, parts of one or several plants, or of multiple small plants. A specimen is usually mounted on a single herbarium sheet or in an equivalent preparation, such as a box, packet, jar or microscope slide. It may be mounted as more than one preparation, as long as the parts are clearly labelled as being part of the same specimen. Multiple preparations from a single gathering which are not clearly labelled as being part of a single specimen are duplicates, irrespective of whether the source was one plant or more than one.

"Ex. 1. The holotype of Cephaelis acanthacea Steyerm., Cuatrecasas 16752 (F), consists of a single specimen mounted on two herbarium sheets, labelled "sheet 1" and "sheet 2". Although the two sheets have separate herbarium accession numbers, F-1153741 and F-1153742 respectively, the cross-labelling indicates that a single specimen is represented. A third sheet of Cuatrecasas 16572, F-1153740, is not cross-labelled and is therefore a duplicate.

"Ex 2. The holotype specimen of Delissea eleeleensis H. St. John, Christensen 261 (BISH), is mounted as two preparations, a herbarium sheet (BISH-519675) bearing the annotation "fl. bottled" and an inflorescence preserved in alcohol in a jar labelled "Cyanea, Christensen 261". The annotation indicates that the inflorescence is part of the holotype specimen and not a duplicate, nor is it part of the isotype specimen (BISH-519676), which is not labelled as including additional material preserved in a separate preparation.

"Ex. 3. The holotype specimen of Johannesteijsmannia magnifica J. Dransf., Dransfield 862 (K), consists of a leaf mounted on five herbarium sheets, an inflorescence and infructescence in a box, and spirit material preserved in a bottle.

"Ex. 4. The holotype of Eugenia ceibensis Standl. is Yuncker & al. 8309 (F), a specimen mounted on a single herbarium sheet. A fragment was removed from the specimen subsequent to its designation as holotype and is now conserved in LL. The fragment is mounted on a herbarium sheet along with a photograph of the holotype and is labelled "fragment of type!". The fragment is no longer part of the holotype specimen, however, because it is not permanently conserved in the same herbarium as the holotype. Such fragments have the status of a duplicate, i.e. an isotype."

Prop. B (68 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 883) Add a paragraph after Art. 8.1, and an Example:

"8.1bis. Material collected from an individual plant at different times may be defined as a single specimen if mounted as a single preparation or as multiple preparations labelled as being part of the same specimen. When such a specimen is designated as the type of the name of a taxon, supplemental material may not be added subsequent to publication of the name.

"Ex. 1. The holotype of Echinocereus sanpedroensis Raudonat & Rischer (in Echinocereenfreund 8(4): 88-97. 1995) consists of a complete plant with roots, a detached branch, an entire flower, a flower cut in halves, and two fruits, taken from the same cultivated individual at different times and preserved, in alcohol, in a single jar."

Prop. C (211a – Gams & al. in Taxon 47: 954) Delete Art. 8 Ex. 1, and add a qualifying clause at the end of Art. 8.2.

[8.2.] ", except in certain zoosporic or zygomycetous fungi (exclusive of Endogonales and Glomales) and ascomycetous or basidiomycetous yeasts whose cultures, if preserved in a metabolically inactive state (lyophilisation or deep-freezing), are acceptable as types."

Prop. D (84 – Forman & Brummitt in Taxon 47: 891) Delete Art. 8.3.

Prop. E (48 – Traverse in Taxon 47: 757) In Art. 8.3, line two, delete the words "of non-fossil plants".

Prop. F (49 – Traverse in Taxon 47: 757) At the end of Art. 8.4 and 8.5, add a sentence: "Note, however, that for names of plant microfossils an illustration may serve as type."

Prop. G (40 – Fensome & al. in Taxon 47: 489) Modify Art. 8.4 by inserting the italicised words, to read:

"8.4. The type of the name of a taxon of fossil plants of the rank of species or below is the specimen whose figure is, as of 1 January 2002, identified as being of the type and either accompanies or is cited in the valid publication of the name (see Art. 38)."

Prop. H (41 – Fensome & al. in Taxon 47: 489) Add a paragraph after Art. 8:

"8.4bis. In cases where, prior to 1 January 2002, the type of a name of a taxon of fossil plants of the rank of species or below is designated but not identified among the illustrations, the name is validly published. However, one of the specimens illustrated in the protologue must be chosen as lectotype. This choice will be superseded if it is later demonstrated that the author of the name clearly intended another specimen illustrated in the protologue to be the type."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A provides a substantially improved definition of what a specimen is for typification purposes. The proposal, by the Committee on Lectotypification (8 : 1), is part of a coherent set but can stand in its own right. One of the effects of its adoption will be the avoidance of unnecessary "lectotype designations" narrowing down the type to a single individual or fragment thereof when a holotype or previously designated lectotype consisted of more than one such element. A second even more crucial benefit will be the removal of threats to the valid publication of a name, under Art. 37, when the holotype specimen is compound. The Rapporteurs are satisfied that the proposal largely reflects current curatorial and nomenclatural practice. If it is adopted, the Editorial Committee may consider substituting "individuals" for "plants", to make it clear that fungi are also covered by the provision.

Prop. B, here put forward separately, belongs in the same context as the foregoing proposal but concerns an independent issue and can be acted upon separately. It has a weaker Committee backing (6 : 3). The proposed addition was part of Art. 9 Prop. A to the Tokyo Congress. It would introduce the option of types consisting of material collected at different dates from the same individual plant, which may sometimes be desirable. As this option would be retroactive, it entails the risk of validating some presently invalid names – a risk that may well be negligible as such cases must be very rare. Ascertaining whether such material was indeed collected from the same individual plant (and what, then, is an individual if one is dealing with a clone?), as the proposed rule would require, could well pose practical problems.

Prop. C, supported (9 : 2) by the Committee for Fungi, would restrict to specific fungal groups the present option, to accept as types cultures that are permanently preserved in a metabolically inactive state. The definition of these groups might pose problems, as they are phylogenetically heterogeneous, and as some of their members do not represent whole organisms but only one particular life stage. Several names of fungi in other groups, typified in this way, were validly published after Tokyo but would become invalid on acceptance of this proposal. The proposal might also adversely affect the names of non-fungal organisms, algae and cyanobacteria in particular. The Committee for Algae is therefore being asked for an opinion. If the proposal is favoured in spite of these misgiving, the Editorial Committee may well choose to retain the present Example, which would still be pertinent, just removing the asterisk designating its special ("voted") status. (See also Rec. 8A Prop. A.)

Prop. D results from the perception that Art. 8.3 is "merely superfluous and confusing". There have indeed been difficulties with the interpretation of this provision, mainly due to the fact that it results from the amalgamation of two issues that were historically distinct: Art. 21, Note 1 and Note 2, of the Stockholm Code. There, the option to designate an illustration as a type was restricted to two precisely defined situations: (a) the absence of type material [for existing names] and (b) the impossibility of preserving such material [for newly proposed names]. The fusion and subsequent rewording of these two provisions made them look less stringent than they were originally, without any declared intent to change their meaning and without deliberate action by a Nomenclature Section. Restoring the original strict limitation of type illustrations would have obvious negative effects on nomenclatural stability. Many cases are known in which flexibility in type designation can help resolve a problem with the application of a name. Whether mere deletion of the provision is the best possible solution is, however, questionable, as it would unduly widen the option to have type illustrations rather than specimens. Also, many names have been rejected in the past as not being validly published, owing to failure to take account of the restriction in Art. 8.3, and these would now become valid post factum. Those who, as the Rapporteurs, are reluctant to favour the proposed deletion might instead, by an "ed.c." vote, encourage the dismemberment of the present provision into its two original elements – whereupon only clause (a) might be deleted but clause (b) retained.

Prop. E results from a misunderstanding. Art. 8.3 is restricted to non-fossil plants merely because fossils are specifically dealt with under the following paragraph. The proposal is therefore unnecessary and will become irrelevant if Prop. D is accepted. The proposer’s point is fully covered by Prop. F.

Prop. F would introduce the option of designating illustrations as types of microfossils (a term not so far used in the Code, and not clearly defined). The proposer’s point appears to be well taken, although the exact wording will require editorial attention. Also, adoption of Prop. A would presumably result in a situation differing significantly from the one on which the proposal is based, which assumes that a single individual microfossil is the type rather than a whole assemblage of conspecific microfossils in one preparation. The proposal has been referred to the Committee for Fossil Plants for an opinion. The result notwithstanding, it will be necessary to re-appraise the situation if Prop A passes.

Prop. G and H clearly pertain to Art. 37 and not to the present Article, as they concern the question of valid publication in the first place. This is, however, an editorial matter and does not affect the merit or otherwise of the proposal, which has been referred to the Committee for Fossil Plants for an opinion. If the proposal is favoured by the palaeobotanical community, it can be accepted in principle.

Recommendation 8A

Prop. A (77 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 886) Delete Art. 8.3, and add a Recommendation after Art. 8:

"8A.0. When selecting a type for a name of a species or infraspecific taxon of non-fossil plants, a specimen is to be preferred to an illustration."

Prop. B (78 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 887) In Rec. 8A.2, delete the words "...it is impossible to preserve a type specimen and...".

Prop. C (67 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 883) Add the following Recommendation after Rec. 8A.3:

"8A.4. When a single specimen is mounted as multiple preparations this should be stated in the protologue, if the specimen is designated as a type, and the preparations appropriately labelled."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A, by the Committee on Lectotypification (7 : 1), coincides with Art. 8 Prop. D (q.v.) but would add a Recommendation (misleadingly worded as a rule) to replace the deleted paragraph. This would only partly take care of the Rapporteurs’ misgivings expressed above.

Prop. B, by the Committee on Lectotypification (7 : 1), is an editorial consequence that would result from the acceptance of either Prop. A or Art. 8 Prop. A.

Prop. C, by the Committee on Lectotypification (6: 1 : 1), would commend good practice on the understanding that Art. 8 Prop. A be adopted.

Article 9

Prop. A (50 – Isoviita in Taxon 47: 761) In Art. 9.2, insert the words "from the original material" after "designated", and convert the text of the present footnote to Art. 9.7 into a full paragraph.

Prop. B (51 – Isoviita in Taxon 47: 761) In Art. 9.6, replace the words "all of the material on which the name of the taxon was based" with: "all original material ¹".

Prop. C (212 – Gams & al. in Taxon 47: 954) After Art. 9.6, insert a paragraph:

"9.6bis. A type culture of a fungus of one of the groups specified Art. 8.2 is a culture preserved in a metabolically inactive form (lyophilised or deep-frozen) that fixes the identity of its name in cases where dried or otherwise dead material does not allow a satisfactory identification (see also Rec. 8B.1)."

Prop. D (83 – Forman & Brummitt in Taxon 47: 891) In Art. 9.9, transfer the second sentence to the end of the paragraph, and re-word the present third to fifth sentences to read:

"In the choice of a lectotype, an isotype must be chosen if such exists. If no isotype exists, the lectotype must be chosen from among the original material. If no original material is extant, a neotype may be selected."

Prop. E (72 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 884) Replace the last sentence of Art. 9.9 by the following:

"If no isotype, syntype or isosyntype (duplicate of syntype) is extant, the lectotype must be chosen from among the paratypes, if such exist. If no isotype, syntype, isosyntype, paratype or isoparatype (duplicate of paratype) is extant, the lectotype must be chosen from among the uncited specimens and cited and uncited illustrations which comprise the remaining original material, if such exist. If no original material is extant, a neotype may be selected."

Prop. F (73 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 885) Delete Art. 9 Note 3.

Prop. G (74 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 886) Add a paragraph after Art. 9.13:

"9.13bis. The author who first designates an epitype must be followed; a different epitype may be designated only if the original epitype is lost or destroyed. A lectotype or neotype supported by an epitype may be superseded in accordance with Art. 9.13 or, in the case of a neotype, Art. 9.12. If it can be shown that an epitype and the type it supports differ taxonomically and that neither Art. 9.12 nor 9.13 apply, the name may be proposed for conservation with a conserved type (Art. 14.9; see also Art. 57)."

Prop. H (75 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 886) Add a Note, to follow the new Art. 9.13bis:

"Note 1. An epitype supports only the type to which it is linked by the typifying author. If the supported type is superseded, the epitype has no standing with respect to the replacement type."

Prop. I (76 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 886) Add a paragraph after the new Art. 9.13bis:

"9.13ter. Designation of an epitype is not effected unless the herbarium or institution in which the epitype is conserved is specified or, if the epitype is a published illustration, a full and direct bibliographic reference is provided."

Prop. J (69 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 884) Add a paragraph after Art. 9.14:

"9.14bis. On or after 1 January 2001, lectotypification or neotypification of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is not effected unless indicated by use of the term lectotypus or neotypus, its abbreviation, or its equivalent in a modern language."

Prop. K (70 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 884) Add a second paragraph after Art. 9.14:

"9.14ter. On or after 1 January 2001, lectotypification or neotypification of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is not effected unless the typification statement includes the phrase "here designated", or equivalent wording."

Prop. L (82 – Brummitt in Taxon 47: 890) Add a paragraph at the end of Art. 9, and add "(but see Art. 9.15)" to Art. 9.2 and 9.6:

"9.15. If a choice of a lectotype or a neotype is made which later is found to refer to more than one specimen, this choice must be accepted (subject to Art. 9.13), but a further choice may be made from within the material first chosen with the purpose of restricting lectotypification or neotypification to a single specimen".

Prop. M (14 – Laferrière in Taxon 47: 179) Add a paragraph after Art. 9.14 at the end of Art. 9:

"9.15bis. Mere citation of the place of conservation of a type or the locale at which the type was collected does not constitute effective publication. The specimen or illustration must be described in sufficient detail to distinguish it from other specimens and illustrations at the institution where it is conserved, e.g. by citation of the collector’s name plus collection number, or by institutional accession number, or some other detail unique to the specimen or illustration."

Prop. N (15 – Laferrière in Taxon 47: 181) Add a second paragraph:

"9.16. If, in the case of a taxon at the genus level or below published on or before 31 December 1957, the description is accompanied by a published illustration but no designation of type, such published illustration is automatically considered lectotype unless original specimen material can be located to supersede it."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A has as its main purpose the upgrading of the present footnote defining original material to the status of a provision. The proposal may be referred to the Editorial Committee, which would then have to decide which is the most appropriate place for such an additional paragraph. The suggested addition to Art. 9.2, similarly, is editorial.

Prop. B, too, may be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Prop. C as presented depends upon the adoption of Art. 8 Prop. C. If suitably reworded, it might be useful as a definition even without the latter proposal. At any rate it belongs to Art. 8, not Art. 9 as proposed. The Committee for Fungi recommends acceptance (9 : 2).

Prop. D suggests an editorial improvement that would not affect the present provision in substance.

Prop. E, by the Committee on Lectotypification (6 : 1 : 1), introduces the new idea that paratypes and their duplicates ("isoparatypes", a term not currently used in the Code) should be given precedence over non-paratypic original material for lectotypification purposes. The concept is logical, although the risk exists that some accepted lectotype designations might lose their standing. However, as paratypes are rarely associated with names that are not holotypified, this risk is probably minimal.

Prop. F, by the Committee on Lectotypification (8 : 0), would remove a Note which is indeed (as most Notes are) strictly speaking superfluous. The Rapporteurs agree that the parenthetical statement in the Note, which alone justifies its existence, is confusing rather than helpful.

Prop. G, by the Committee on Lectotypification (8 : 0), would flesh out the epitype concept (Art. 9.7) introduced by the Tokyo Congress into the Code. This concept has been found to be useful in the last few years, and adding the proposed provision would consolidate its status while at the same time providing a mechanism to correct its misuse. A similar proposal had been defeated at Tokyo essentially because, contrary to the present one, it did not include such a corrective mechanism.

Prop. H, by the Committee on Lectotypification (8 : 0), would add a useful explanatory Note.

Prop. I to K all have the same general intent, namely to tighten the conditions for post-validation type designations. This would bring them into line with the requirements for original type designations (Art. 37.4-5). Prop. I (by the Committee on Lectotypification, 8 : 0) essentially requires that the place of deposit for newly designated epitypes be mentioned (in parallel to Art. 37.5); it has no date limit to it because the epitype concept is so new that retroactivity of the provision will do no harm. Prop. J (by the Committee on Lectotypification, 6 : 1) and Prop. K (id., 7 : 0), are both to become effective from a future date and concern both lectotypes and neotypes. Prop. J parallels Art. 37.4 in requiring actual use of the term lectotype or neotype. If this is adopted, the Editorial Committee will clarify that the new provision does not take precedence over the present Art. 9.8, in conformity with the Committee’s stated intent. Prop. K would require that the intent to newly typify be explicitly declared. It will be superfluous if the parallel but more far-reaching Art. 7 Prop. B (q.v.) is adopted, which concerns names at all ranks (not only of species and infraspecific taxa), and also epitypes.

Prop. L would embody in the Code the practice of "two-step lectotypification". As long as the first-step lectotype designation is of a single gathering (as defined by Art. 8 Prop. A9), which is what the proposer declares to have in mind, this is a sound and basically stabilising practice. One should indeed hope that such practice has been generally followed in the past, but it is not at present mandated by the rules. As presently worded, however, the proposal would be quite dangerous. To obviate the danger, the words "a single gathering but" would have to be inserted ahead of "more than one specimen" (vote "ed.c." if you agree). The proposal is paralleled by, and complementary to, Art. 37 Prop. B-C concerning holotypes. Adoption, in parallel, of Art. 8 Prop. A would be helpful, to avoid the risk of abusive second-step lectotypification by what are in fact merely subunits of a single specimen.

Prop. M does, as is explained in the rationale, but not in the proposal itself, concern subsequently designated types only, not holotypes, and is perceived to parallel Art. 37.3 concerning the latter. This parallelism is not however evident, and the two provisions would have widely different effects in practice. The second sentence would be incompatible with the foregoing proposal (Prop. L). Some might be in sympathy with adopting the first proposed sentence alone (in which "effective publication" is an error for "effective designation"), if it proves possible to reword it so that it cannot conflict with the Prop. L provision. An "ed.c." vote on this shall be interpreted as favouring the latter solution, i.e., for a positive vote on the first sentence alone.

Prop. N results from its author giving more weight to the provision of Art. 8.3 than is presently usual, even more weight in fact that one may legitimately read into it (contrary to what the proposer believes, that provision does not allow designation of a neotype if the protologue includes an illustration, or a reference to an illustration). Acceptance of Art. 8 Prop. A (or Rec. 8A Prop. A) would remove the reason behind the present proposal while running counter to its intent. What the proposal would rule is that illustrations published as part of the protologue can serve as type only if, and only as long as, no original specimens are known. The wording is, however, unsatisfactory and ambiguous in some respects, and would not be applicable to names of taxa above the rank of species.

Article 10

Prop. A (178 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 947) Add a paragraph and a Note after Art. 10.4:

"10.4bis. The type of a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus which, on its publication, is postulated to be a graft chimaera or hybrid between different genera or subdivisions of a genus may be a designated standard specimen or illustration of a cultivar (see Note 2bis), provided that no named species was simultaneously included in that genus or subdivision of a genus.

"Note 2bis. The nomenclature of cultivars is governed by the provisions of the International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants (see Pre. 8); under the provisions of that Code, cultivars do not have nomenclatural types but may have "standard specimens" which, when designated, are considered to be equivalent to nomenclatural types for the purposes of Art. 10.4bis."

Prop. B (79 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 888) Delete Art. 10.5(b) and Art. 10 Ex. 5, and revise Art. 10 Ex. 6 to read:

"Ex. 6. Delphinium L. has been proposed for conservation with a conserved type, D. peregrinum L., which replaces D. consolida L., the type designated by Britton & Brown (Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed 2, 2: 93. 1913). The unicarpellate D. consolida could not have been superseded as type by the tricarpellate D. peregrinum under Art. 10.5 because it is not in serious conflict with the generic protologue, which specifies "germina tria vel unum", the assignment of the genus to "Polyandria Trigyna" by Linnaeus notwithstanding."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A is part of the set of proposals that would delete the "hybrid appendix" while integrating some of its provisions into the body of the Code (see Pre. 8 Prop. B). The special provisions on names of intergeneric hybrids (presently Art. H.6) would be deleted under the latter proposal, and these names would then be treated exactly like normal generic names (see Art. 20 Prop. C). The present proposal would introduce the option of naming graft chimaeras at the generic level under the botanical Code, whereas presently they are solely in the domain of the ICNCP; this would conform to the wish of the body responsible for the ICNCP and would remove the risk of "homonymy" arising between designations for intergeneric graft chimaeras and "normal" botanical generic names. The proposal would, specifically, permit the valid naming of [hybrid genera and] intergeneric graft chimaeras that do not comprise named species but cultivars only (provided their designations are based on a "standard specimen" or "standard illustration" under the ICNCP). Such a special provision would be required because graft chimaeras do not normally receive "botanical" names at the species level. The proposer does not give much of a rationale for the proposed change, and the benefit that botanical nomenclature would derive from taking "chimaerical names" on board is not immediately apparent (see also comments under Chap. III Prop. A). Even less apparent is the usefulness of introducing a provision for naming intersectional or inter-subgeneric graft chimaeras, when even in the ICNCP no such provision now exists. The Rapporteurs suggest that, to make the proposal more acceptable, reference to intergeneric hybrids and to ranks below genus be both eliminated (vote "ed.c." if you favour the latter approach, but "no" if you object to introducing graft chimaeras into the Code).

Prop. B, by the Committee on Lectotypification (8 : 0), is potentially dangerous. It would declare lectotype designations made under the American Code effective when they were previously supersedable. This could have major destabilising consequences not foreseen, nor indeed intended, by the Committee, which considered the proposal’s merits almost exclusively in the light of the special case of Linnaean generic names. One instance of such potentially destabilising effects, standing for many parallel cases, is the lichen Example here proposed for deletion (Art. 10 Ex. 5). The Committee is doubtless correct in stating that American Code lectotypifications are not in reality "largely mechanical" – which is why Art. 10 Ex. 6 had to be a "voted Example", in effect ruling that American Code lectotypifications are "to be considered as largely mechanical". However, what really counts is not the phraseology used (which is admittedly unsatisfactory) but the desired and achieved effect, which should not easily be reversed.

Article 11

Prop. A (99a – Chaloner & al. in Taxon 47: 909) Add a paragraph to Art. 11:

"11.2bis. Except in the case of parataxa (Art. 59 and 59bis), names based on any part of a plant or portion of its life history are treated as applicable to the whole organism and compete for priority with names in the same rank based on different plant parts or life history stages (see Art. 1.2)."

Prop. B (100 – Chaloner & al. in Taxon 47: 910) Make the same changes and additions as by Prop. (99a), but in Art. 59.0bis, instead of "Fossil non-algal taxa", write "Fossil taxa, excepting diatoms (Bacillariophyceae),"; make parallel changes in the proposed Art. 1.2 and in the Note corresponding to present Art. 11.7 (see above).

Prop. C (43 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 493) Add a paragraph and a Note after Art. 11.2:

"11.2bis. A name that was published in the 18th or 19th century and has not been used during the 20th century should not be reintroduced on or after 1 January 2000. Such a nomen oblitum (forgotten name) may not constitute the basionym of a name.

"Note 0. For the purpose of Art. 11.2bis, only effectively published use of a name counts; in addition, the mentioning of a name in synonymy or its mere listing in a nomenclator or index does not constitute use of a name."

Prop. D (03 – Castroviejo & Brummitt in Taxon 45: 567) Add a Note and an Example after Art. 11.4:

"Note. In rare cases an author may need to transfer simultaneously two different species from different genera to the same third genus when they both have the same final epithet in their earliest legitimate name. Since to transfer epithets of both of these names would create homonyms, either one of the two should be transferred, and a name including a different final epithet should be adopted for the other.

"Ex. Raymond-Hamet (1929) included in the genus Sedum for the first time both Cotyledon sedoides DC. 1808 and Sempervivum sedoides Decne. 1844. He transferred the epithet of the later name, Sempervivum sedoides, to Sedum as S. sedoides (Decne.) Hamet, and published a new name, S. candolleanum Hamet, for the other. Both names are legitimate."

Prop. E (62 – Jeffrey in Taxon 47: 768) Add a sentence to the end of Art. 11.6 and an Example:

"Likewise, an autonym is treated as having priority over any homotypic synonym and over any heterotypic synonym that denotes a taxon which includes the type of the name of the higher taxon, established as such by the lectotypification, neotypification or conservation of the type of the names concerned, irrespective of whether or not a name in the same rank that does not include the type of the name of the higher taxon was simultaneously or later validly published.

"Ex. 22bis. Pangalo (in Trudy Prikl. Bot. 23: 258. 1930) when describing Cucurbita mixta Pangalo distinguished two varieties, C. mixta var. cyanoperizona Pangalo and var. stenosperma Pangalo, together encompassing the entire circumscription of the species. Since neither a holotype nor any syntypes were indicated for C. mixta, both varietal names were validly published (see Art. 26.2). Merrick & Bates (in Baileya 23: 96, 101. 1989), in the absence of known type material, neotypified S. mixta by an element that can be attributed to C. mixta var. stenosperma. As long as their choice of neotype is followed, the correct name for that variety is C. mixta var. mixta, not C. mixta var. stenosperma; and when, as by Merrick & Bates, this variety is treated as a variety of C. argyrosperma Huber 1867, its correct name is C. argyrosperma var. mixta (Pangalo) ined., not C. argyrosperma var. stenosperma (Pangalo) Merrick & D. M. Bates."

Prop. F (209 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 952) In Art. 45.5, delete the middle portion, from "other than algae" in line 2 to "belonging to the algae" in line 4; and add a paragraph after Art. 11.7 (inserting cross-references to it wherever appropriate):

"11.7bis. The correct name under this Code for an ambiregnal taxon (a taxon that is sometimes treated under the bacteriological or zoological Code, depending on taxonomic opinion or an author’s preference) is the earliest name which is acceptable under any Code and is not a later homonym of a name established under another Code".

Prop. G (05 – Fensome & Skog in Taxon 46: 557) Add a paragraph, with Examples, to Art. 11:

"11.10. Because fossil specimens may represent dispersed parts of an organism or a single stage in a life cycle, and because the temporal relationships of these fossils to other parts or stages, or to the whole organism, usually cannot be confirmed, they can be assigned to form-genera. It may also be necessary to define form-genera on the basis of different preservational modes. With respect to form-genera, the principle of priority is obligatory only between names for the same part, life cycle stage or preservational mode.

"Ex. 29. The genus Sigillaria Brongn. 1822, established for bark fragments, may in part represent the same biological taxon as the cone-genera Mazocarpon M. J. Benson 1918, which represents petrifactions, or Sigillariostrobus (Schimp.) Geinitz 1873, which represents compressions. These genera are all assignable to the family Sigillariaceae and may be associated with the root-genus Stigmaria Brongn. 1822 and the leaf-genus Cyperites Lindl. & Hutton 1832, which may also be assignable to the families Lepidodendraceae and Bothrodendraceae as well as the Sigillariaceae. All these generic names can be considered correct in spite of the fact that they may, at least in part, represent the same biological taxon.

"Ex. 30. The fossil cysts known under the generic name Tuberculodinium D. Wall 1967 may be retained under this generic name even though modern cysts of this type are known to be part of the life cycle of the extant genus Pyrophacus F. Stein 1883, which is the senior name if the two are considered taxonomically synonymous."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A and B are alternatives, both being linked to the series aimed at bringing the provisions of the Code into line with current palaeobotanical practice (Art. 1 Prop. A-B and Art. 59bis Prop. A). Prop. B would, in addition, extend the provision of limitation of priority for names of fossils, now in Art. 11.7 (which would become a Note), and to the algae except diatoms. This may be desirable in the interests of nomenclatural stability. Prop. G (q.v.) offers a somewhat different approach. The proposals have been referred to the Committee for Fossil Plants for an opinion. The Committees for Algae for Fossil Plants have been asked to advise.

Prop. C has a laudable intent but, apart from being virtually impracticable (see comments under Art. 7 Prop. A), its wording hence its application is unclear. The first sentence is worded as a Recommendation, which cannot be as it would recommend against the rules of priority. It as must be assumed that the proposal’s intent is to rule rather than recommend that "nomina oblita" (a term used in zoology, new to botanical nomenclature) lose their priority when competing with other names (not, presumably, for the purpose of homonmy). However the possible negative consequences in groups that were not or hardly studied in this century (e.g. many fungi, algae, and fossils) have not been properly assessed. In such groups, many previously named taxa would have to be redescribed and renamed when studied again. The Special Committee on Harmonisation nevertheless supports this proposal (2+2 : 1)

Prop. D does not intend to introduce a change but may be useful to make explicit what the Code presently implies, particularly as some author has apparently misunderstood the rules. The wording of the proposed Note is rather complex and might be tightened, but the Example is certainly useful. Both can be referred to the Editorial Committee for appropriate action.

Prop. E is difficult to understand. After repeated reading, the Rapporteurs are still uncertain about its exact meaning and possible consequences. The problem outlined by the Example appears to reside, not in the present provisions of Art. 11.6 but in the phraseology of Art. 26.3, which might perhaps profit from a slight change (so that it would read "The first instance of valid publication of a name of an infraspecific taxon under a legitimate species name automatically establishes the corresponding autonym"; a parallel change to be made in Art. 22.3). The proposed Example could then, duly simplified, be included in Art. 26. Preference for such a solution can be indicated by voting "ed.c.".

Prop. F, supported (4 : 1) by the Special Committee on Harmonisation, may well resolve some or all of the problems associated with "ambiregnal organisms" (as they are here defined). The proposed rule would result in some changes of botanical names which, however, would benefit the followers of the corresponding non-botanical Code. The permanent committees for the taxonomic groups concerned are being asked to express an opinion on this proposal.

Prop. G is companion to Art. 3 Prop. A and covers similar ground as Art. 11 Prop. A and Art. 59bis Prop. A. A perceived foible of the present proposal is that, contrary to the latter set, it is limited to the rank of genus, a limitation which is bound to cause difficulties because generic names are, in turn, typified by the type of a name of an included species. Also, the wording is perhaps too loose: if there is a choice, how is one to decide whether or not a genus qualifies as a form-genus? The proposal (on which the Special Committee on Harmonisation voted 2+1 : 2) has been referred to the Committee for Fossil Plants for an opinion. on this proposal.

Article 14

Prop. A (63 – Moore in Taxon 47: 769) Replace the first sentence of Art. 14.1 with:

"In order to avoid disadvantageous nomenclatural changes entailed by the strict application of the rules, and especially of the principle of priority in starting from the dates given in Art. 13, this Code provides, in App. II and III, lists of names of families, genera, and species that are conserved (nomina conservanda) and must be retained as useful exceptions."

Prop. B (34 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 191) Add "subdivisions of families", after "families", and before "genera", to the first sentence of Art. 14.1.

Prop. C (52 – Isoviita in Taxon 47: 761) In Art. 14.1, delete the words "nomenclature of families, genera, and species", replacing them with: "nomenclature of taxa of the rank of family and below".

Prop. D (85 – Mackinder & Nic Lughadha in Taxon 47: 893) In Art. 14.1, replace "the nomenclature of families, genera and species" with "nomenclature"; in Art. 14.4, replace "A conserved name of a family or genus" with "A conserved name of any taxon in the rank of genus or a higher rank", and replace the last sentence with the following text:

"A conserved name of any taxon below the rank of genus is conserved against all names in the same rank listed as rejected, and against all combinations based on the rejected names."

Prop. E (18 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 183) In Art. 14.7, add "name or" between "or a" and "combination", and an Example:

"Ex. 6bis. Camphora Fabr. (1759) is rejected in favour of Cinnamomum Schaeff. (1760); if Camphora and Cinnamomum are considered to be members of the same tribe, the name Cinnamomeae Endl. (1836) must be adopted, not Camphoreae Endl. (1836)."

Prop. F (129 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 928) Add a paragraph after Art. 14.11, and amend Art. 60 Ex. 3:

"14.11bis. When a species name since long is in use with an altered spelling of the epithet, even though "correction" is not permissible, a request for conservation of the spelling may be submitted to the General Committee (see Div. III) which will refer it for examination to the committee for the appropriate taxonomic group. A recommendation may then be put forward to an International Botanical Congress, and, if ratified, will become a binding decision for conservation of the altered spelling of this species name. This decision will be binding for the species name, as well as for its basionym (if there is one) and all combinations based on it or on its basionym, in any rank.

"Ex. 3. Engler (1883) supposed that the vernacular name of Gluta benghas L. (1771) was spelled "renghas", not "benghas", therefore he considered there to be an orthographical error and "corrected" the name to G. renghas. This "correction" is not permissible, and continued use of the G. renghas spelling can be justified only through conservation of this spelling."

Prop. G (130 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 929) At the end of the new Art. 14.11bis, add the following sentence:

"If on or after 1 January 2000, a proposal to conserve the spelling of a name is rejected, this implies that the original spelling must be used."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A, by slightly rewording the present provision, would remove what is perceived by at least one of the permanent committees as an undesirable (and perhaps unintentional) limitation. The rephrased provision would permit the conservation of names of species or genera even when the disadvantageous changes only affect names of taxa in subordinate ranks. Acceptance of this proposal would promote the goal of stability without opening new "floodgates".

Prop. B-D go beyond Prop. A in progressively widening the range of ranks in which conservation is possible. Prop. B would add all ranks between genus and family, Prop. C also the infraspecific ranks and those between species and genus, and Prop. D would completely remove rank limitation, thus making rank coverage of Art. 14 consistent with that of Art. 56. The rephrasing of Art. 14.4 that is specified in Prop. D would be required by analogy also under the two other proposals. This could be effected editorially.

Prop. E introduces a new idea and is independent of the foregoing proposals. As the Example makes evident, it would extend the effect of conservation and rejection of generic names to suprageneric names that are based on them. In theory the idea has some logic, but the practical effects of its implementation have not apparently been assessed.

Prop. F would add a lengthy paragraph to cover ground that is already fully covered by the present Art. 14.11. The proposal appears to be unnecessary.

Prop. G concerns matter that has so far been dealt with by the General Committee (see e.g. Taxon 45: 525-526. 1996). It is probably inappropriate to rule on it by means of a provision in the Code.

Article 15

Prop. A (86 – Comm. NCU in Taxon 47: 895) In Art. 15, add six paragraphs (those numbered below as 15.1-4, 15.9, 15.12); provide for the protection of names in current use, in addition to sanctioning, in the extant provisions; and renumber the paragraphs; so that Art. 15 will read as follows (new or modified text italicised):

"15.1. In order to protect names in current use from being threatened or displaced by names that are no longer in use, and in order to eliminate uncertainties regarding their application, spelling, gender, and date and place of valid publication, published lists of names of families, genera, or species can, upon recommendation by the General Committee, be approved by an International Botanical Congress. Such lists, once approved, are enumerated in Appendix VI.

"15.2. Subject to specified restrictions and exceptions (Art. 15.3), all names on lists enumerated in Appendix VI, together with their autonyms, are protected. (a) A protected name (nomen protectum) is treated as if conserved against earlier homonyms and unlisted competing synonyms; (b) it is accepted as validly published in the place and on the date cited in the list; (c) its type, when listed, is treated as if conserved under Art. 14.3; (d) its adopted spelling and, when specified, its gender is treated as if conserved under Art. 14.11. &127

"15.3. Protection can, for individual lists, be restricted with respect to the options (a) to (d) mentioned in Art. 15.2, and individual entries on a list can be excepted from protection. Such restrictions and exceptions are to be specified in Appendix VI.

"15.4. Once a list has been approved under Art. 15. 1, entries can be added to, modified in or removed from that list only by a process analogous to conservation (see Art. 14.12 and 14.14). Stated restrictions and exceptions (Art. 15.3) can be waived or modified only by the decision of an International Botanical Congress. &127

"15.5. Names sanctioned under Art. 13.1(d) are treated as if conserved against earlier homonyms and competing synonyms. Such names, once sanctioned, remain sanctioned even if elsewhere in the sanctioning works the sanctioning author does not recognise them.

"15.6. An earlier homonym of a protected or sanctioned name is not made illegitimate by that protection or sanctioning but is unavailable for use; if legitimate, it may serve as a basionym of another name or combination based on the same type (see also Art. 55.3). &127

"15.7. When, for a taxon from family to genus inclusive, two or more protected or sanctioned names compete, Art. 11.3 governs the choice of the correct name (see also Art. 15.10-11).

"15.8. When, for a taxon below the rank of genus, two or more protected or sanctioned names and/or two or more names with the same final epithet and type as a protected or sanctioned name compete, Art. 11.4 governs the choice of the correct name (see also Art. 15.10-11).

"Note 1. The date of protection or sanctioning does not affect the priority (Art. 11) of a protected or sanctioned name, which is determined only on the basis of valid publication. In particular, when two or more homonyms are sanctioned only the earliest of them can be used, the later being illegitimate under Art. 53.2.

"15.9. When, under Art. 15.7-8, two or more protected names of equal priority compete, a choice between them may be entered in the appropriate list. Once approved, such listed choices supersede any other choices that may have been made under Art. 11.5.

"15.10. A name which is neither protected nor sanctioned nor has the same type and epithet as a protected or sanctioned name in the same rank may not be applied to a taxon which includes the type of a protected or sanctioned name in that rank the final epithet of which is available for the required combination (see Art. 11.4(b)).

"15.11. Conservation (Art. 14) and explicit rejection (Art. 56.1) override protection or sanctioning. Protection overrides sanctioning.

"15.12. When a list of names has been submitted for approval, and when approval has been recommended by the General Committee, names on that list may be treated as if protected, subject to stated limitations, pending the decision of a later International Botanical Congress."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A reintroduces a proposal that had been amply debated before and at the Tokyo Congress, where it was supported by a simple but not by the requisite qualified majority. Contrary to the original (1993) proposal, the present one would limit the option to protect listed names to the principal ranks (family, genus, species). It should be borne in mind that this is an enabling provision and that protection of listed names will be subject to prior scrutiny by all interested specialists as well as the competent nomenclatural committees. It has been suggested to the Rapporteurs that some of the former opposition to the NCU concept might be due to the phrase used, and that "Names in Use" might be a more appropriate and more readily acceptable designation. Support of that idea may be indicated by an "ed.c." vote. The Committee on Names in Current Use supports the proposal (9 : 3).

New Recommendation 15A

Prop. A (87 – Comm. NCU in Taxon 47: 897) Add a Recommendation after Art. 15 (9 : 2 : 1 ):

"15A.1. When a draft list of names has been prepared and is being studied in advance of being submitted to an International Botanical Congress for approval, authors using these names should follow existing usage as far as possible pending the General Committee's recommendation."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A parallels the equivalent Recommendation for names under consideration for conservation (Rec. 14A). Such a Recommendation would be a logical corollary of adoption of Art. 15 Prop. A. The Committee on Names in Current Use supports the proposal (9 : 2 : 1).

Article 16

Prop. A (19 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 183) Delete Art. 16.1 and replace with the following, adding two Examples:

"16.1. The names of taxa above the rank of family are treated as nouns in the plural and are written with an initial capital letter. They may be either (a) automatically typified names formed by adding a termination denoting their rank to the genitive singular stem of a generic name, or (b) descriptive names ("typeless names") which are formed differently, apply to taxa with a recognised circumscription, and may be used unchanged at different ranks.

"Ex. 1. Automatically typified names above the rank of family: Magnoliophyta, Gnetophytina, Pinopsida, Marattiidae, Piperanae, Fucales, Bromeliineae.

"Ex. 2. Descriptive names above the rank of family: Angiospermae, Anthophyta, Centrospermae, Chlorophyta, Coniferae, Enantioblastae, Gymnospermae, Parietales."

Prop. B (20 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 184) Add the following paragraph, plus an Example:

"16.1bis. For automatically typified names, the name of a subdivision or subphylum which includes the type of the adopted name of a division or phylum, the name of a subclass which includes the type of the adopted name of a class, or the name of a suborder which includes the type of the adopted name of an order, are to be based on the same type.

"Ex. 3. Pteridophyta Bergen & B. M. Davis (1906) and Pteridophytina B. Boivin (1956); Gnetopsida Engl. (1898) and Gnetidae Cronquist & al. (1966); Liliales Perleb (1826) and Liliineae Rchb. (1841)."

Prop. C (21 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 184) Convert Rec. 16A.4 to a rule, and add an Example:

"16.1ter. When an automatically typified name above the rank of family has been published with a Latin termination not agreeing with the provisions of this Article, the termination must be changed to conform with the rule, without change of the author’s name or date of publication (see Art. 32.6).

"Ex. 4. "Cactarieae" (Dumortier, 1829, from Cactus) and "Coriales" (Lindley, 1833, from Coriaria) are to be corrected to Cactales Dumort. (1829) and Coriariales Lindl. (1833) respectively."

Prop. D (22 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 184) Add the following paragraph, and three Examples (plus current Art. 18 Ex. 7):

"16.1quater. Names of taxa above the rank of genus proposed with a non-Latin termination are not validly published.

"Ex. 5. "Acoroidées" (Kirschleger, Fl. Alsace 2: 103. 1853-Jul 1857) is not to be accepted as "Acorales Kirschl.", because it has a French rather than a Latin termination. The name Acorales was later validated by Reveal (in Phytologia 79: 72. 1996).

"Ex. 6. "Melantheen" (Kittel in Richard, Nouv. Elém. Bot., ed. 3, Germ. transl.: 727. 1840) is not to be accepted as "Melanthieae Kitt.", because it has a German rather than a Latin termination. The name Melanthieae was validated later by Grisebach (Spic. Fl. Rumel. 2: 377. 1846).

"Ex. 7. "Ginkgales" (Tieghem, Elém. Bot., ed. 2, 1: 209-210. 1898) is not to be accepted as "Ginkgoales Tiegh." because, as used by van Tieghem, the name has a French rather than a Latin termination. The name Ginkgoales was validated later by Bessey (in Trans. Amer. Microscop. Soc. 20: 95. 1910)."

Prop. E (23 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 184) Add the following paragraph and Example:

"16.1quinquies. Automatically typified names of taxa above the rank of family based on illegitimate generic names are legitimate if the family name is conserved (see Art. 18.3).

"Ex. 8. The names Caryophyllidae Takht. (Sist. Filog. Cvetk. Rast.: 144. 1967), Caryophyllanae Takht. (Sist. Filog. Cvetk. Rast.: 144. 1967) and Caryophyllales Perleb (Lehrb. Naturgesch. Pflanzenr.: 312. 1826) are legitimate because the family Caryophyllaceae Juss. (Gen. Pl.: 299. 1789) is conserved, even though its type, Caryophyllus Mill. (1754) non L. (1753), is illegitimate."

Prop. F (24 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 185) Add the following paragraph and Example:

"16.1sexies. Names above the rank of genus are not to be formed by adding the prefix Eu- to denote a lesser rank. If validly published, such names are to be corrected without change of the author’s name or date of publication.

"Ex 9. The subfamily name "Euschizaeaceae" proposed by Presl (Suppl. Tent. Pterid.: 72. 1845) is to be corrected to Schizaeoideae C. Presl. The tribal name "Euloganieae" proposed by Endlicher (Gen. Pl.: 576. 1838) is to be corrected to Loganieae Endl. The subtribal name "Eudryadeae" proposed by Torrey and Gray (Fl. N. Amer. 1: 419. 1840) is to be corrected to Dryadinae Torr. & A. Gray."

Prop. G (25 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 185) Convert Rec. 16A.1-3 to a rule, to precede the present Art. 16 Note 1, adding the rank superorder:

"16.1septies. An automatically typified name of a taxon above the rank of family is formed by replacing the termination -aceae of an effectively published family name with a termination appropriate to the rank. The termination for each rank is as follows:

Prop. H (101 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 911) Add a clause to the proposed ((25) in Taxon 47: 185. 1998) Art. 16.1septies:

Prop. I (26 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 186) Delete Rec. 16B.1, and add a second sentence to Art. 16 Note 2:

"In choosing among typified names for a taxon above the rank of family, authors should generally follow the principle of priority. In choosing among competing names, authors should adopt those typified by an accepted family name."

Prop. J (27 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 186) Add a third sentence to Art. 16 Note 2, and an Example:

"However, automatically typified names of taxa above the rank of family should be selected regardless of priority so as to retain a consistency among all of the appropriate ranks (e.g., Pinophyta, Pinophytina, Pinopsida, Pinidae, Pinales, Pininae, and Pinaceae; or Magnoliophyta, Liliopsida, Commelinidae, Commelinales, and Commelinaceae).

"Ex 2bis. If the name Taccaceae Dumort. (Anal. Fam. Pl.: 57, 58. 1829) is considered a synonym of Dioscoreaceae R. Br. (Prodr.: 294. 1810), the name Dioscoreales Hook. f. (in Le Maout & Decaisne, General Syst. Bot.: 1018. 1873) should be adopted rather than the earlier Taccales Dumort. (Anal. Fam. Pl.: 57. 1829). However, if the name Taccaceae Dumort. is accepted for a family included within the order, either of the names Taccales or Dioscoreales may be adopted."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A-J are presented as a package aiming at a more logically structured ruling on suprafamilial names. As at least some of the matter is of considerable complexity, and as other even more complex questions, concerning suprageneric names in general, have been raised elsewhere (Art. 41 Prop. A-B, Art. 49 Prop. A), some or all of these proposals might perhaps be referred to a new, apposite Special Committee (those preferring this option should vote "sp.c."). However, several of the present proposals are fairly straightforward and appear to be immediately acceptable.

Prop. A and Prop. B, taken together, do not introduce a change of substance and are therefore basically editorial. Prop. A has the particular merit of clarifying the presently rather foggy distinction between automatically typified and so-called descriptive suprafamilial names (see also comments to Prop. E). Prop. B offers a useful Example.

Prop. C would extend the provision of Art. 17.3 to the ranks above order, which appears to be a logical move.

Prop. D spells out what is presently implicit, viz., that names published with a non-Latin termination are not validly published. As this provision would concern all ranks above genus, it would be misplaced in Art. 16 which relates to suprafamilial names only. It might be preferable to add parallel provisions following Art. 18.4 for family names and 19.6 for names of subdivisions of a families. The last suggested Example (Ex. 7) is not covered by the rule and is probably misguided in essence, as it would by analogy lead to devalidation of many names of families and orders published in English texts.

Prop. E spells out current practice, as the Example aptly demonstrates, but is unsatisfactory as it introduces the concept of legitimacy at suprafamilial ranks when, at these ranks, illegitimacy (as defined in Art. 6.4) does not presently exist. The Rapporteurs would prefer a simpler solution (which would also eliminate the existing illogicality of ordinal names being always based on family names but supraordinal ones, merely on generic names): in Art. 16.1(a), as newly worded by Prop. A, to replace "adding a termination denoting their rank to the genitive singular stem of a generic name" by "replacing the termination -aceae in a legitimate name of an included family by the termination denoting their rank". Such a change would also clarify the status of suprafamilial names that do not conform to this provision: they would be neither illegitimate nor invalid, but could be used as (non-typified) descriptive names. A new Special Committee on Suprageneric Names (see above) might be instructed to examine the question. Those preferring immediate implementation of the Rapporteurs’ suggestion may express this by voting "ed.c.".

Prop. F would again require separate parallel rulings for suprafamilial names (under Art. 16, as proposed) and for names of sub-divisions of families (under Art. 19, to be added editorially). The Example suggested belongs to the latter category. The new provisions would declare valid some names which, at present, are not validly published. The usefulness of the proposed rule is questionable, as most names that it would redeem must be used at any rate, irrespective of priority, under Art. 16.1 and 19.4; only their (rarely used) author citation would be affected.

Prop. G would have three main effects. Firstly, it would eliminate reference to descriptive names from the present Rec. 16A, which is a logical consequence of adoption of Prop. A redefining such names. Secondly, it would upgrade the remainder of Rec. 16A to the status of a rule and combine it with Art. 17.1 in a new paragraph of Art. 16, which is both editorially sound and logical if Prop. A is adopted. Thirdly, it would introduce the rank of superorder into the Code, for which the termination -anae is proposed, as it has some use in angiosperm classifications already. In view of the latter aspect, the proposal is supported (3+2 : 0)by the Special Committee on Harmonisation. The proposer believes that upon adoption of Prop. G Art. 17.3 could be deleted, but this is hardly true; on the contrary, that provision should be expanded to cover supraordinal ranks and transferred to Art. 16. An "ed.c." vote will be interpreted as favouring the latter suggestion.

Prop. H would introduce a new termination for purposefully unranked but otherwise validly published suprageneric names. This is a somewhat problematical concept, to apply solely for future names, partly because it gives no criteria for the expression of "purpose", but mainly because it does not take into account the fact that unranked suprageneric names may exist in various, quite different rank categories (e.g. infrafamilial or supraordinal) when the use of the same termination may result in confusion. Nevertheless, the proposal may address a perceived need in view of recent cladistic practices.

Prop. I and Prop. J are stated to be Notes but, as they are advisory not explanatory, would be (or remain) Recommendations. Prop. I would add a second sentence to Rec. 16B.1, which, while probably commendable, would often result in conflict with the first sentence. Similarly, Prop. J would contribute to the maintenance of established custom in one particular situation, but would often go against the first sentence. The Rapporteurs would be happy to do away with Rec. 16B altogether or, perhaps preferably, to have it replaced with a Recommendation to follow established custom in a general way. Those in favour of the latter solution should vote "ed.c.".

Recommendation 16A

Prop. A (199 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) In Rec. 16A.3 (c), insert ", but not -viridae" after "-idae".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A, favoured by the Committee on Harmonisation (4+1 : 0), is the first of a series of proposals designed to avoid confusion between botanical names and the scientific names of viruses. As explained below (see Art. 20 Prop. A) this proposal is basically innocuous and potentially beneficial. It can be editorially combined with Art. 16 Prop. G if the latter is adopted.

Article 17

Prop. A (200 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) In Art. 17.1, insert "(but not -virales)" after "-ales".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – The same comments as for Rec. 16A Prop. A also apply to this proposal.

Article 19

Prop. A (201 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) At the end of Art. 19.3, add ", but not -virinae" after "-inae".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – The comments made under Rec. 16A Prop. A are also valid, by analogy, for the present proposal.

Article 20

Prop. A (202 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 950) At the end of Art. 20.1, add ", but may not end in -virus" after "manner".

Prop. B (115 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 923) Replace Art. 20.3 as follows, amend Art. 20 Ex. 6, and delete Ex. 7:

"20.3. The name of a genus may not consist of two words, unless they were originally joined by a hyphen. However, the hyphen must now be deleted (see Art. 60.9).

"Ex. 6. "Uva ursi", as originally published by Miller (1754), consisted of two separate words unconnected by a hyphen, and is therefore not validly published (Art. 32.1(b)). The name is correctly attributed to Duhamel (1755) who published it as "Uva-ursi", a spelling that under Art. 60.9 has to be corrected to Uvaursi."

Prop. C (179a – Trehane in Taxon 47: 947) Add a paragraph at the end of Art. 20:

"20.5. Designations for hybrid taxa in supraspecific ranks that are condensed formulae, or have a condensed formula as their epithet, and are determined by a statement of parentage under previous editions of this Code, are not considered as names under this Code unless all conditions for their valid publication are fulfilled (but see Art. 41.2bis & 43.2).

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A, favoured by the Committee on Harmonisation (3+1 : 0 : 1), is the concluding proposal of the series starting with Rec. 16A Prop. A, designed to avoid confusion between botanical names and the scientific names of viruses. Outlawing the generic termination -virus would seem to be a timely move as no botanical generic name with that ending has yet been published (so that there is no objection to making the proposed provision retroactive). There is in fact a single legitimate generic name from which suprageneric names ending in -virales, -viridae or -virinae could potentially be derived: the virtually unknown sterculiaceous Ivira Aubl., a taxonomic synonym of Sterculia L.

Prop. B is one of countless proposals aimed at modifying the present provisions on orthography. These proposals, made partly by the Special Committee on Orthography (which voted 4 : 1 on Prop. B), partly by its Secretary (when no sufficient majority could be achieved), and partly by others, are often contradictory or overlapping, so that the overall picture is one of general confusion. The Rapporteurs see little other choice than recommending the establishment of a new Special Committee on Orthography to look further into the matter. Those favouring this suggestion should vote "sp.c." on this and correlated proposals. As to the present Prop. B, it is among those concerning hyphenation (see Art. 60 Prop. GG-LL) and would be essentially editorial if Art. 60 Prop. GG or HH were to be approved.

Prop. C is part of the hybrid package (see Pre. 8 Prop. B) and, in conjunction with Art. 41 Prop. C and Art. 43 Prop. A, specifically deals with the situation resulting from deletion of Art. H.6. These three items were in fact submitted as a single proposal, but each should be considered separately. The provision proposed here, when taken on its own, spells out the effect of deleting Art. H.6-H.9 (as by Pre. 8 Prop. B) and if the latter is approved is hardly more than a Note. The two corollary proposals (q.v.) are designed to alleviate some of the deletion’s effects, as some such consequences might otherwise be destabilising.

Article 21

Prop. A (151 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 937) In Art. 20.1, insert "nominative" before "singular"; in Art. 21.2, before "or a plural adjective", insert "or a substantive in the genitive plural", adding at the end: ", but not a substantive in the genitive singular"; and add a clause to Art. 21 Ex. 1: "Pleione subg. Scopulorum;".

Prop. B (53 – Isoviita in Taxon 47: 761) Add a paragraph and an Example in Art. 21:

"21.4. The use of a binary combination instead of a subdivisional epithet is not admissible. Contrary to Art. 32.1(b), names so constructed are validly published but are to be altered to the proper form without change of the author’s name or date of publication.

"Ex. 2. Sphagnum "b. Sph. rigida" (Lindberg in Öfvers. Förh. Kongl. Svenska Vetensk.-Akad. 19: 135. 1862) and S. sect. "Sphagna rigida" (Limpricht, Laubm. Deutschl. 1: 116. 1885) are to be cited as Sphagnum [unranked] Rigida Lindb. and S. sect. Rigida (Lindb.) Limpr., respectively."

Prop. C (54 – Isoviita in Taxon 47: 761) At the end of Art. 21, add a Note and an Example:

"Note 3. The use of a binary combination instead of a subdivisional epithet is not admissible. In accordance with Art. 32.1(b), names so constructed are not validly published.

"Ex. 2. Sphagnum "b. Sph. rigida" (Lindberg in Öfvers. Förh. Kongl. Svenska Vetensk.-Akad. 19: 135. 1862) was not validly published. The name intended by this designation, and subsequently used as the basionym of the corresponding sectional name, is to be cited as Sphagnum [unranked] Rigida Schlieph. (in Verh. K.K. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 15: 413. 1865)."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – The first part of Prop. A, stating that generic names are in the nominative case, reflects past and current practice and would essentially result in an editorial clarification (note that in compounds like Cornucopiae and Uva-ursi the grammatically determinant first term is in the nominative case). The clarification is important in the context of Art. 21.2, where reference is made to "the same form as a generic name", which some have taken as permitting subdivisional epithets that are genitive singular nouns (contrary to sound tradition). The proposal would in addition salvage a few subdivisional epithets that are presently inadmissible, being genitive plural nouns, but are quite acceptable from the point of view of logic and linguistics. The two ideas are not mutually dependent, and those favouring the first but not the second one may express this by an "ed.c." vote.

Props. B and C are alternative solutions, each of which would clarify the presently disputed nomenclatural status of some names of subdivisions of genera. Prop. B relates to current bryological practice and is worded by analogy with Art. 24.4 relating to infraspecific names; Prop. C, on the contrary, spells out what by default must be assumed to be the present ruling, and reflects actions taken, e.g., by some modern taraxacologists. Either solution is acceptable and both are preferable to the status quo. The proposer suggests that "the special committees responsible for the various major plant groups might care to give their recommendations" and points out that the second alternative (Prop. C) would be very harmful for nomenclatural stability in mosses. Prop. B, which he prefers, appears to be logical in view of the current situation at infraspecific ranks.

Article 22

Prop. A (152 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 938) Add a paragraph after Art. 22.4, and in Art. 55.1 replace the words "Autonyms excepted (Art. 22.1)" with a cross-reference to the new paragraph:

"22.4bis. The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus may not repeat the generic name unaltered if the latter is illegitimate."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A, together with Art. 27 Prop. A would eliminate an apparent anomaly in the present Art. 55.1-2 where the term "autonyms" is misapplied to invalid designations resembling autonyms. The suggested rewording reflects current practice. Art. 55 Prop. A (q.v.) offers a parallel solution to the same problem.

Article 23

Prop. A (164 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 941) Add a sentence at the end of Art. 23.1: "The specific epithet is written with a small initial letter.", and delete Rec. 60F.

Prop. B (121 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 924) After Art. 23.5, add a Note and three Examples:

"Note 1. An epithet which is a substantive in the nominative case retains its own gender and form of declension (if any); an epithet which is a substantive in the genitive case retains its own number and gender.

"Ex. 4bis. In Sapium laurocerasus Desf. ("laurocerasum"), the epithet is a substantive derived from the generic name Laurocerasus, so its termination -us must be maintained irrespective of the gender of the generic name the epithet is combined with.

"Ex. 4ter. In Masdevallia echidna Rchb. f. the epithet is the name of an animal. When the species was transferred to Poroglossum, the epithet should have remained unaltered: P. echidna.

"Ex. 4quater. Convolvulus cantabrica must not be changed to C. cantabricus since the epithet cantabrica is a pre-Linnaean generic name used as a noun in apposition."

Prop. C (147 – Perry in Taxon 47: 935) Add a Note after Art. 23.5:

"Note 1. Words ending in -cola are either substantives or one-ending adjectives. Treating them as three-ending adjectives is contrary to classical Latin and so the use of -colus or -colum in an adjectival epithet must be changed to -cola."

Prop. D (148 – Perry in Taxon 47: 935) In Art. 23 Ex. 4, second line, delete "the specific epithet being a Latin substantive" after "("amnicolus"),".

Prop. E (149 – Perry in Taxon 47: 935) Add a new paragraph after Art. 23 Ex. 4:

"23.5bis. A classical noun or a word ending in a classical noun when adopted as a specific epithet is sometimes used as an adjective. If it cannot be determined from first usage whether a noun or an adjective was intended, it must be treated as a noun in apposition unless a compound word is involved, when an adjective must be assumed."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A, supported by the Special Committee on Harmonisation (5 : 0), would proscribe the use of a capital initial letter in specific epithets. As presently worded it might be construed as rendering new names or combinations published with a capitalised epithet invalid under Art. 32.1(b), which is not the proposer’s stated intention and goes against the second sentence of Art. 60.2. The gain achieved by outlawing epithet capitalisation is not quite obvious to the senior Rapporteur, as modern programmes of alphabetisation do not make a distinction between capital and lower case letters. Also, the use of capitalised epithets may help avoid inappropriate changes of epithet inflection upon generic transfer and is not therefore meaningless. These traditional arguments notwithstanding, it is an indisputable fact that epithet capitalisation has been marginalised in recent years.

Prop. B, submitted by the Committee for Orthography (4 : 1), is a clarification of what is presently implicit and can be accepted without harm if considered useful (but why, then, is no parallel clarification proposed for Art. 24?). The first of the three suggested Examples appears to be erroneous. Desfontaines knew his Latin better than many modern authors: the neuter "laurocerasum" is correct to designate a fruit just as the feminine "laurocerasus" stands for a tree.

Prop. C, again an explanatory note but no change of substance, may be seen as a useful clarification relating to a frequent source of confusion. It may be referred to the Editorial Committee by those who do not object to including such points of detail in the Code.

Prop. D concerns the wording of an Example and is editorial.

Prop E would provide a new rule to deal with epithets which, linguistically, may be either nouns or adjectives. The proposed solution is not convincing, however, and its effect would sometimes be counter to current and traditional practice. One of the cases mentioned in the rationale of the proposal may serve to illustrate this: the epithet "hybrida", when originally placed under a feminine generic name, would under the new provision, contrary to consistent tradition, have to be treated as an invariable noun in apposition (e.g., Petasites hybridus (L.) Gaertn., based on Tussilago hybrida L., would become P. "hybrida" even though Petasites is masculine under Art. 62.4).

Article 27

Prop. A (153 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 938) Add a paragraph at the end of Art. 27, and in Art. 55.2 replace the words "Autonyms excepted (Art. 26.1)" with a cross-reference to the new paragraph:

"27.2. The epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon may not repeat unchanged the epithet of the species name if the latter name is illegitimate."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A parallels Art. 22 Prop. A (q.v.). Art. 55 Prop. B (q.v.) offers a parallel solution to the same problem.

Chapter III, New Section 5bis

Prop. A (180 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 947) Transfer Art. 27 to the end of Art. 26, to be followed by a new Section 5bis "Designation and names of hybrids and graft chimaeras", with an additional Article; and in Art. 50.1 replace "(Art. H.10.2)" with "(Art. 27.2)":

"27.1. A hybrid between named taxa may be indicated by placing the multiplication sign "´ " between the names of the taxa; the whole expression is termed a hybrid formula.

"27.2. Hybrids between representatives of two or more named taxa of generic or lower rank (and arising either in nature or cultivation) may receive a name. The hybrid nature of a such a taxon may be indicated by placing the multiplication sign "´ " in front of the name of a hybrid genus or, in the case of a hybrid of lower rank, in front of the final epithet.

"27.3. Graft chimaeras between representatives of two or more named genera may receive a name. The graft-chimaeral nature of such a taxon may be indicated by placing the addition sign "+ " against the initial letter of the generic name.

"Note 1. Designations for certain categories of plants used in agriculture, forestry and horticulture (e.g., cultivars and cultivar-groups) are not covered by this Code, but fall under the provisions of the International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants (see Pre. 8).

"27.4. For the purposes of homonymy and synonymy, the multiplication or addition sign is disregarded."

Prop. B (181 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 948) Add a Recommendation after Art. 27:

"27A.1. The names of taxa in a hybrid formula should be placed in alphabetical order, unless a different rationale is explicitly stated."

Prop. C (182 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 948) Add a second Recommendation after Art. 27:

"27B.1. The multiplication sign denoting hybridity in the name of a taxon should be placed against the initial letter of the epithet or, in hybrid genera, of the name. However, if the symbol "´ " is not available and the letter "x" is used instead, a single space may be left between it and the epithet of the name if this helps avoid ambiguity. The letter "x" should be in lower case."

Prop. D (183 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 948) Add a third Recommendation after Art. 27:

"27C.1. When contemplating the publication of new names for hybrids between taxa, authors should carefully consider whether they are really needed, bearing in mind that hybrid formulae (Art. 27.1), although more cumbersome, are more informative."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A would introduce a supplementary Article to accommodate some of the provisions presently in Appendix I (Names of Hybrids), viz., Art. H.1-H.3. The proposer also suggests how the new Article might best be placed with but minimal change in Article numbering. This is a composite proposal, much of which is an editorial consequence of adopting Pre. 8 Prop. B (q.v.). Art. 27.3, however, is new matter as it would provide for the naming of intergeneric graft chimaeras presently covered by the rules of the ICNCP (note that intrageneric graft chimaeras receive cultivar epithets under Art. 20.5 of the ICNCP, and their names are not regulated by the botanical Code). Whether this is indeed desirable has been questioned before (see under Art. 10 Prop. A). Those favouring the core proposal but objecting to its extension to cover graft chimaeras may indicate this by an "ed.c." vote. If graft chimaeras are to be included, the Editorial Committee should be instructed to make sure that the wording of Art. 27.3 cannot be interpreted as applying to lichens (see Art. 13.1(d), last sentence). The Editorial Committee should also feel free to omit the proposed Note, as it duplicates the (more appropriately placed) Art. 28 Note 1. The Special Committee on Harmonisation supported Prop. A (2+2 : 0 : 1).

Prop. B is essentially a rewording and simplification of the present Rec. H.2A. It may be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Prop. C, similarly, is only a slight editorial modification of Rec. H.3A.

Prop. D is based on the present Rec. H.10B, concerning infraspecific nothotaxa, but would expand its coverage to hybrid taxa of all ranks.

Article 28

Prop. A (184 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 948) Delete Art. 28.2.

Prop. B (185 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 948) In Art. 28 Note 1, delete the last sentence.

Prop. C (186 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 948) In Art. 28 Note 2, delete "1980" in the first sentence and the whole second sentence.

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A is an editorial change consequent on adoption of Pre. 8 Prop. B, deleting the existing Appendix I.

Prop. B, eliminating that part of the current Note which specifies that the provisions of the botanical Code are also applicable to cultivated plants, may seem not to be of any immediate consequence. However, as its adoption might be taken to imply that cultivated plants can receive names only under the ICNCP, the proposal is likely to be controversial. Many might be appalled by the prospect of losing a familiar name such as Triticum aestivum L., nom. cons., which refers to a cultigen species, unknown in the wild. The vote of the Special Committe on Harmonisation on this proposal was 3 : 1 : 1.

Prop. C is mainly editorial. The present reference is to an obsolete edition of the ICNCP. It is not clear to the Rapporteurs why the second sentence of the Note should be deleted rather than updated (the corresponding rule is still in the ICNCP, now as Art. 17.9).

Article 29

Prop. A (16 – Laferrière in Taxon 47: 181) In Art. 29.1, eliminate the words "the general public or at least to botanical institutions with," so that it reads:

"29.1. Publication is effected under this Code only by the distribution of printed matter (through sale, exchange, or gift) to libraries accessible to botanists generally."

Prop. B (11 – Comm. Electronic Publishing in Taxon 47: 176) Add the following words at the end of Art. 29.1 (removing the last "or"):

"by publication online, or by dissemination of distributable electronic media."

Prop. C (12 – Comm. Electronic Publishing in Taxon 47: 177) Add the following paragraph to Art. 29 (and, in Art. 31.1, after "printed matter", add "or authorised electronic publication (see 29.2)":

"29.2. The General Committee may designate one or more online electronic journals as suitable vehicles for publication of nomenclatural novelties after positive evaluation by a Special Committee of their adherence to established standards of electronic document archiving, authentication and identification, including a sure method of ascertaining exact date of publication, through notice in the journal Taxon. This action would need to be ratified at the next International Botanical Congress."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A would modify retroactively the conditions for effective publication, with unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences for the status of presently accepted names. It nevertheless has the support of the Special Committee on Harmonisation (2+2 : 1).

Prop. B, by the Special Committee on Electronic Publishing (12 : 2), would specify in the Code that publication through electronic media is not at present acceptable as effective. The Committee was close to unanimous in considering that any move towards recognising electronic publications nomenclaturally would be premature, and the Committee on Harmonisation concurs (4+1 : 0).

Prop. C, by the Special Committee on Electronic Publishing (9 : 5), would empower the General Committee to admit effective publication in particular electronic journals ahead of the next International Botanical Congress. While recognising the terrific speed at which communication and publication technologies are progressing, the Rapporteurs would nevertheless prefer a more cautious approach, not imparting responsibility to the General Committee in a substantive nomenclatural matter for which International Botanical Congresses are ultimately responsible. The Special Committee on Harmonisation was divided on Prop. C (1+2 : 2).

Article 30

Prop. A (154 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 938) Add a second sentence to Art. 30.1: "Indelible autograph produced later is not effectively published."

Prop. B (17 – Laferrière in Taxon 47: 181) At the end of Art. 30.3, add two sentences as follows:

"Publication on or after 1 January 2001 is effected only through publication in a book or periodical devoted entirely or primarily to the publication of the results of scientific research or botanical/mycological exploration. A serial is defined as matter printed and distributed on a recurring basis, whether on a regular or irregular schedule."

Prop. C (44 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 493) Add a paragraph at the end of Art. 30:

"30.5. If the place in which a name was published in the 18th or 19th century has been neglected during the 20th century, this place of publication and its authorship should continue to be ignored after 1 January 2000: it should be treated as not effectively published."

Prop. D (64 – Farjon in Taxon 47: 771) Add a paragraph at the end of Art. 30:

"Art. 30.5bis. Publication on or after 1 January 2000 of an independent publication stated to be a thesis, and presented to a university or other institute of education with the objective of obtaining a degree, is not effectively published unless it bears an International Standard Book Number (ISBN number)."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A would spell out what is presently implied in Art. 30.1, and is editorial. The Special Committee on Harmonisation agrees (2+2 : 1).

Prop. B, which had some support in the Special Committee on Harmonisation (2+1 : 2), aims to discredit for nomenclatural purposes future publications which are not "devoted entirely or primarily to the publication of the results of scientific research or ... exploration" – a category of publications that is hard to define objectively. In addition the proposed text includes a definition of "serial", although that term is not otherwise used in this Article.

Prop. C is related to Art. 7 Prop. A and Art. 11 Prop. C (q.v.). The comments made there apply by analogy, perhaps to an even higher degree. "Neglect" of a publication during a whole century is virtually impossible to either define or verify. Incidentally, the provision is worded as though it were a mere Recommendation, as which it would of course be dysfunctional. The proposal was not favoured by the Special Committee on Harmonisation (2 : 2 : 1).

Prop. D, favoured by the Special Committee on Harmonisation (2+2 : 1), would severely restrict the future possibility of effective publication by means of theses. There have admittedly been problems with theses in the past, which may continue into the future. However, it would appear that the proposed restrictions do not account sufficiently for the varying traditions prevailing in different countries, both regarding the status and distribution of theses and the use of ISBN numbers. The proposed provision would likely be considered as discriminatory by botanists in many countries, including those of the developing world.

Article 32

Prop. A (88 – Borgen & al. in Taxon 47: 902) In Art. 32.1, last sentence, delete the clause "subject to the approval of the XVI IBC,".

Prop. B (89 – Borgen & al. in Taxon 47: 902) Add a footnote to the end of Art. 32.1:

Prop. C (90 – Borgen & al. in Taxon 47: 902) Add a Note after Art. 32.2:

"Note 0. A list of registering offices is maintained and made available by the International Association for Plant Taxonomy."

Prop. D (91 – Borgen & al. in Taxon 47: 902) Add a paragraph after Art. 32.2:

"32.2bis. The date of registration is the date on which the registration submission is received at a registering office. It does not depend on the date on which registration of a given name is made publicly known."

Prop. E (92 – Borgen & al. in Taxon 47: 903) In Art. 32.2, after "printed matter that includes the protologue(s)," add: "in duplicate".

Prop. F (93 – Borgen & al. in Taxon 47: 903) Add a sentence at the end of Art. 32.2, and an Example:

"When effective publication (Art. 29-31) is not in doubt, photocopies are acceptable in place of the original printed matter.

"Ex. 1. The effective publication of journals or books issued by a recognised commercial or institutional publisher is taken for granted."

Prop. G (94 – Borgen & al. in Taxon 47: 904) Add a second Note after Art. 32.2, and a sentence at the end of Art. 46.2:

"[32.] Note 0bis. Registration is incumbent upon the authors of new names, but may also be undertaken by a third party (e.g. the publisher, or any other person) in their stead (see also Art. 46.2).

"[46.2.] Authorship is not affected by the identity of the person submitting the name for registration (see Art. 32 Note 0bis)."

Prop. H (13 – Comm. Electronic Publishing in Taxon 47: 177) Qualify as optional for authorised electronic publication (see 29.2) all references to pagination in the Code; and add the two following sentences at the end of Art. 32.2 and 33.2, respectively:

"If electronic publication of names is authorised (see Art. 29.2), then registration of such names is to be effected by sending an appropriate copy of that publication to one of the registering offices designated for this purpose by the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.

"Reference to pagination is optional for full and direct reference to place of publication for names in electronic publications authorised as acceptable for effective publication of new names."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A is the backbone of a set of proposals by which the preliminary decision of the Tokyo Congress providing for the registration of new names would be made mandatory from the presently stated date, 1 January 2000. This date is, of course, open to reconsideration depending upon the perceived reliability and practicability of the registration mechanisms, which are presently on trial.

Prop. B provides for a contingency in the unlikely case that the registration mechanism should, at some future date, cease to be functional. It is paralleled in a different context by the footnote to Div. III.1. The Special Committee on Harmonisation supports Prop. A-D+F-G (3 : 1 : 1) and E (3+1 : 1).

Prop. C specifies that the IAPT has the mandate to maintain a constantly updated list of the institutions recognised as registering offices, and to make that list widely known.

Prop. D would define the date of registration of a name (which in the future would, under Art. 45, be the date of its valid publication) in such a way as to make it largely independent of the hazards of international mailing. Its intent is to put all botanists world-wide on an equal footing.

Prop. E would fix the number of identical copies of printed matter required for registration purposes at two, which is the minimum required to ensure that publication is technically effective. The proposed low number aims to avoid putting an undue burden on authors and publishers. Of the two copies thus requested, one would remain at the place of registration, to serve as an insurance against the loss of the second copy in transit.

Prop. F would alleviate yet further the potential burden placed on authors and publishers, permitting the submission of photocopies for registration purposes in those cases in which there can be no reasonable doubt as to the effectiveness of publication of the respective printed matter.

Prop. G would make it explicit that third parties (including indexers) are entitled to submit names for registration. In such an event, it would ensure that the authorship and credit for these names would nevertheless remain with their real authors. Taken in conjunction with Rec. 32G Prop. A, this proposal would prevent new names published after 1999 that were, for any reason, not submitted for registration by the responsible authors or publishers, from being lost. This could be an important improvement in the functioning of registration, especially in the early days and until the principle has become generally known and embodied as a routine in taxonomic working practice. In order to take care of misgivings that have been voiced, fearing the risk of registration of names against the (undeclared) will of their authors, a later Congress may wish to consider tightening submission requirements beyond what is presently proposed.

Prop. H, made by the Special Committee on Electronic Publishing (9 : 5) but not supported by the Special Committee on Harmonisation (1+1 : 2 : 1), is contingent upon adoption of Art. 29 Prop. C and Art. 32 Prop. A. It may be referred to the Editorial Committee for appropriate action. However, the Section may not wish to endorse the proposed exemption but rather ask for the deposit of hard copy with added pagination, which could then be cited as the registered place of publication for electronically published names. The latter preference may be indicated by a "sp.c." vote, so as to instruct the future Special Committee on Electronic Publishing (as per Art. 29 Prop. C) to work out appropriate procedures.

Recommendation 32C

Prop. A (155 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 938) Delete Rec. 32C.

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A reflects the fact that Rec. 32C as currently worded is meaningless. It might be argued that rewording the Recommendation to restore what one may perceive as its intended meaning is possible and even desirable. This could perhaps be achieved by replacing the words "adoption of" by "validly publishing". An "ed.c." vote will be interpreted as supporting the latter view, and not merely to trust that good sense will prevail even without a Recommendation, as the proposer suggests.

New Recommendation 32G

Prop. A (95 – Borgen & al. in Taxon 47: 904) Add a Recommendation after Rec. 32F:

"32G.1. Botanists, including those responsible for recording registered names, are encouraged to effect registration of any names that fulfil all requirements for valid publication except registration."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A would reinforce Art. 32 Prop. G (q.v.). It is supported (3 : 1 : 1) by the Special Committee on Harmonisation.

Article 33

Prop. A (102 – Zijlstra & Brummitt in Taxon 47: 913) Add a sentence at the end of Art. 33.2:

"If no reference to a basionym is given, but an epithet which has previously appeared as part of a validly published name in a closely related taxonomic position is adopted in a new combination which is likely to apply to the same taxon, the combination made may be treated as validly published if, and only if, it would otherwise be validly published as the name of a new taxon".

Prop. B (104 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 915) Reword Art. 33.3, to read:

"33.3. Errors in the citation of the basionym or replaced synonym, including incorrect author citation (Art. 46), but not omissions (Art. 33.2), do not invalidate publication of a new combination or an avowed substitute."

Prop. C (105 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 915) At the end of Art. 33.4, add "(but see Art. 33.4bis)"; add a paragraph after Art. 33.4, followed by the present Ex. 6-7 suitably reworded:

"33.4bis. In any of the following cases, reference to a work other than that in which the basionym or replaced synonym was validly published is treated as an error to be corrected, not affecting the valid publication of a new combination or nomen novum published on or after 1 January 1953:

Prop. D (28 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 186) Add a paragraph after Art. 33.6, and three Examples:

"33.7. An exception to Art. 33.5 is made for names of subdivisions of families in the publications of Engler (Syllabus, ed. 1-11. 1892-1936) and Engler & Prantl (Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, ed. 1. 1887-1915, ed. 2. 1924-, and Das Pflanzenreich, 1909-) published prior to 1 January 1953, wherein names ending with the terminations -oideae, -eae and -inae are to be regarded as proposed at the ranks of subfamily, tribe and subtribe respectively (Art. 19).

"Ex. 14. The name Woodsieae proposed by Diels (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 1(4): 158, 159. 1899) is to be considered as published at the rank of tribe and not section as stated elsewhere (l.c.: 801). The rankless name Woodsiinae Diels (l.c.: 159) is to be considered as proposed at the rank of subtribe.

"Ex. 14bis. In Engler’s treatment of Saxifragaceae (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(2a): 41-93. 1891), the names Hydrangeoideae, Eremosyneae, and Astilbinae are to be considered as proposed at the ranks of subfamily, tribe and subtribe respectively.

"Ex. 14ter. Although Warming (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(2a): 1-22. 1891) attributes the rank of tribe to Podostemoideae and Hydrostachyoideae, these names are to be considered as proposed at the rank of subfamily. Warming’s (l.c.) names, Tristicheae, Weddellineae, Marathreae, Mourereae, and Podostemeae (‘Eupodostemeae’), stated in the index of the volume to be at the rank of section, are to be considered as proposed at the rank of tribe."

Prop. E (42 – Veldkamp & Sosef in Taxon 47: 491) Add an Example, with appropriate cross-references elsewhere, where the Editorial Committee deems best (e.g. Art. 14, 33, 45, 53):

"Ex. X. "Canarium pimela Leenh. nom. nov." (in Blumea 9: 406. 1959) was published to replace the illegitimate C. pimela K. D. König (1805). The two names are so-called ‘isonyms’ (homotypic, orthographically identical names published by different authors). A later isonym has no nomenclatural status and is to be regarded as a bibliographic error of citation to be corrected (see Art. 33.3)."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A will cause a feeling of déjà vu to many, as similar proposals had been made and defeated at two previous Congresses. The present proposal has, however, taken the main objections then raised into account and appears to be well suited to overcome perceived problems resulting from strict application of the current rules. The proposal apparently aims to deal with two slightly different situations at one stroke: that prevailing before 1953 (now indirectly covered by Art. 32.4-5) and the current situation outlined in Art. 33.2. If the proposal is accepted the Editorial Committee will have to ensure that the intended effect of the proposed addition is achieved: that names intended as new combinations can be accepted as such, even though not all requirements are met, when they would otherwise be valid names of new taxa (with consequent loss of priority and change of authorship).

Prop. B and Prop. C are aimed at resolving an apparent conflict between Art. 33.3 and Art. 33.4. Prop. B would restore the original meaning of that paragraph, which was partly lost through past editorial rewordings. Prop. C would specify under which precise conditions new combinations and nomina nova are acceptable even though the validating reference is technically wrong. Clause (a) would address situations in which the error was made in good faith; clause (b) specifically refers to the cases of later starting point dates (notably to the changed date in fungi); and clauses (c) and (d) reflect a concern parallel and complementary to that underlying Prop. A. The rationale for the proposal mentions a number of additional examples on which the Editorial Committee may want to draw.

Prop. D is one of those proposals that wants to introduce special rules to cover individual cases. Whether the undisputed importance of Engler’s work justifies such special treatment, and whether the rule is indeed necessary at all, is a matter of opinion. Most treatments of the Engler school are consistent with the assumption that the termination used for suprageneric taxa is the one presently prescribed for the corresponding rank (e.g., names ending in -oideae are either explicitly or by implication names of subfamilies), and only by accident does the stated rank contradict such placement. Actually there is a published set of nomenclatural rules for the Berlin-Dahlem staff (in Deutsch. Bot.-Kalender 1899: 113-115. 1898) which explicitly prescribes the rank-specific terminations -aceae, -oideae, -eae, and -inae. If a Special Committee on Suprageneric Names is to be appointed, as suggested elsewhere (see Art. 41 Prop. A-B), it might be instructed also to consider the present proposal.

Prop. E offers an Example to the Editorial Committee and at the same time would introduce the term "isonym" and its definition into the Code. Whereas the Example may be found to be useful and may be referred to the Editorial Committee, it is unlikely that the latter will adopt the new term unless it is formally introduced in an apposite provision.

Article 34

Prop. A (103 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 914) Add a Note and an Example after Art. 34.1:

"Note 0. If both the name and a text fragment including a description or diagnosis of a taxon are ascribed to an author or authors different from the author or authors of a publication (authorship not partially in common, cf. Art. 46.2, and the description or diagnosis not evidently written with the intention to have it published in that article or book), but the author(s) of the publication do(es) not accept the name, it is not validly published.

"Ex. 8bis. "Excremis ramosa Willd.", cited by Roemer & Schultes (Syst. Veg. 7, ed. 15, 7: 354. 1829) as a synonym of Dianella dubia Humb. & Bonpl., was not validly published, despite the fact that in a footnote Roemer & Schultes cite Willdenow’s generic diagnosis of "Excremis"."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A would open a can of worms. Changing a provision regarding the valid publication of names with retroactive effect is always dangerous. Proposing this on the grounds that one has not properly grasped the effect of that provision is particularly unwise, as others may not have similarly failed to understand the Code. In the Rapporteurs’ opinion the proposed new rule is much less clear and much more difficult to apply than the current one, as it uses soft concepts such as "intention" and "evidently" as criteria. The proposer does not give examples in which the change would prove beneficial but, conversely, it would result in a number of currently accepted names being thrown into question. Helictotrichon Besser, the well-known name of a grass genus, is just one example.

Article 35

Prop. A (30 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 187) Add the following Examples, two of them as "voted Examples", following Art. 35.2:

"*Ex. 2bis. Jussieu (in Mém. Mus. Hist. Nat. 12: 497. 1827) proposed Zanthoxyleae without specifying the rank. Although he employed the termination for tribe (-eae), the name is still rankless and the correct citation is Zanthoxyleae (A. Juss.) Dumort. (Anal. Fam. Pl.: 45. 1829). The rank of tribe was first ascribed by Dumortier to the Jussieu name.

"Ex. 2ter. Bartling (Ord. Nat. Pl.: 36. 1830), in his discussion of infrafamily groups in Restionaceae, termed them "tribe"; as this is the only rank used for his otherwise rankless infrafamilial names, all infrafamilial names are assigned the rank of tribe.

"*Ex. 2quater. Lindley (Veg. Kingd.: 1846) assigned "subordo" (i.e., subfam.: Art. 19.2), "section" and "tribe" to some of his infrafamilial names; as a result, those names not assigned any rank are rankless regardless of the typography or arrangement of the names in the work, or the termination employed for each name.

"Ex. 2quinquies. In a footnote to Hieracium, Gaudin (Fl. Helv. 5: 65. 1829) applied the term "section" to an otherwise unranked infrageneric taxon. This single indication of rank applies to all infrageneric names in his seven-volume (1828-1833) work."

Prop. B (55 – Isoviita in Taxon 47: 763) Add a paragraph in Art. 35:

"35.2bis. For a name published before 1 January 1953, a section sign (§) in the place of a rank-denoting term is acceptable as indication of the rank of section, unless there is internal evidence in the publication that another rank or function was intended by the use of that sign."

Prop. C (56 – Isoviita in Taxon 47: 763) Add a paragraph in Art. 35:

"35.2ter. For a name published before 1 January 1953, an asterisk (*) in the place of a rank-denoting term is acceptable as indication of the rank of subspecies, unless there is internal evidence in the publication that another rank or function was intended by the use of that sign."

Prop. D (187 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 948) Move Art. H.12.2 to Art. 35, to follow Art. 35.3.

Prop. E (29 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 187) Add a paragraph after Art. 35.4, and an Example:

"35.5. The rankless names proposed by Endlicher in Genera plantarum (1836-1840 [-1850]) and in Enchiridion botanicum (1841) above the rank of tribe or subfamily but below the rank of family are to be treated as proposed at the rank of family.

"Ex. 3. The rankless names Grubbiaceae Endl. (Gen. Pl.: xiv. 1839) and Eupomatiaceae Endl. (Ench. Bot.: 425. 1841, ‘Eupomatieae’) are validly published at the rank of family."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A offers four Examples, two of them straightforward illustrations of how the Code operates and two others to be "voted Examples" aimed at interpreting or modifying the present provisions. The Code does not presently require that the rank of new suprageneric names be explicitly stated upon publication, so that one might justifiably assume that such names published without rank designation are valid at the rank indicated by their termination. This would, however, be destabilising in the case of early names, published prior to the time when the present terminations were defined (in the Vienna Rules of 1906, at least for names up to the rank of order; see also comment under Art. 33 Prop. D). The Rapporteurs would be happier if the change intended by the proposed "voted Examples" were restricted to the period prior to 1906, so as to preclude the risk of retroactively eliminating later suprageneric names. This, however, could not conceivably be achieved by means of voted Examples but only by explicit ruling. If a Special Committee on Suprageneric Names is to be appointed, as suggested elsewhere (Art. 41 Prop. A-B), it might be instructed to consider the present proposal.

Prop. B and C have the parallel intent to diminish the number of unranked names. The question that must be asked is whether the consequences of such a change might not be destabilising rather than beneficial, at least in a number of cases. The use of an asterisk to designate subspecies rank is a widespread Scandinavian tradition. (However, in some earlier works such as Persoon’s Synopsis plantarum asterisked names were meant to designate "incompletely known species".) Similarly, the designation of sections by paragraphs has a wide but inconsistent application among nineteenth-century botanists. The proposer feels, perhaps rightly, that the uncertainty surrounding names in the corresponding ranks is still great, so that even though a number of name changes might result from adoption of his proposals these would not be of major consequence.

Prop. D is an editorial corollary of the proposed deletion of the "hybrid appendix" (Pre. 8 Prop. B).

Prop. E has a similar intent as Art. 33 Prop. D (q.v.), and would also introduce a complete new provision relating to the work of a single author. As only the rank of family is concerned, in which conservation is possible, the justification for such special treatment appears to be tenuous. If a Special Committee on Suprageneric Names is to be appointed, as suggested elsewhere (Art. 41 Prop. A-B), it might be instructed to consider the present proposal.

Article 36

Prop. A (06 – Craven in Taxon 46: 809) Amend Art. 36.1 and 36.2 by replacing "Latin" with "English", so that the relevant passages will read: "... accompanied by an English description or diagnosis or by a reference to a previously and effectively published English description or diagnosis".

Prop. B (07 – Craven in Taxon 46: 809) Amend Art. 36.3 by deleting all reference to Latin.

Prop. C (08 – Craven in Taxon 46: 809) Amend Art. 36 by replacing the dates "1 January 1935", "1 January 1958", and "1 Jan 1996" with: "1 January 2000".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A-C, taken together, would (a) substitute Latin for English as the obligatory validating language of the future and (b) abolish retroactively the post-1934 requirement of Latin for names of new taxa of non-fossil plants. Such action would validate an unknown but important number of presently invalid names, proposed between 1935 and 2000 without a Latin description or diagnosis or reference to such. Many unwelcome name changes would be the consequence. Prop. A taken alone would be particularly unfortunate, as it would in addition devalidate countless currently accepted names, especially those published outside the English speaking parts of the world. Such pranks are unlikely to be taken seriously even by those who would accept that English is the main international language of science of the second half of this century, and that as such it deserves a special role in nomenclature. A similar (certainly less unreasonable) option has been passionately debated in the past: allowing English as an alternative to (rather than a surrogate for) Latin, from a future date – but this is not what is proposed here. The Special Committee on Harmonisation voted 2+1 : 2 on Prop. A-B and 1+1 : 2 : 1 on Prop. C.

Article 37

Prop. A (211b – Gams & al. in Taxon 47: 954) Add a Note after Art. 37.1.

"Note 0. Metabolically inactive living material (lyophilised or deep-frozen cultures) of fungi in the groups specified in Art. 8.2 are acceptable as types for the purpose of this Article (see also Rec. 8B.1). In cases of conflict, the identity of any preserved dead original specimen of the same strain prevails over that of a type culture."

Prop. B (80 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 888) In Art. 37.3, replace "element" with "gathering or illustration", "holotype" with "type", and "specimen" with "gathering", adding two Examples:

"37.3. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon, citation of a single gathering or illustration is acceptable as indication of the type (but see Art. 37.4). Mere citation of a locality without concrete reference to a gathering does not however constitute indication of a type. Citation of the collector’s name and/or collecting number and/or date of collection and/or reference to any other detail of the type gathering is required."

"Ex. 1. The protologue of Laurentia frontidentata E. Wimm. (in Engler, Pflanzenr. 108: 855. 1968) includes the type statement "E. Esterhuysen No. 17070! Typus – Pret., Bol." The name is validly published because a single gathering is cited, despite the citation of two specimens.

"Ex. 2. Baloghia pininsularis Guillaumin (in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., B, Bot. 8: 260. 1962) was published with two cited gatherings: Baumann 13813 and Baumann 13823. As the author failed to cite a single gathering, the name was not validly published. It was later validated by McPherson & Tirel (in Fl. Nouv.-Caléd. 14: 58 1987), who cited "Lectotype (désigné ici): Baumann-Bodenheim 13823 (P!; iso-, Z)."

Prop. C (81 – Comm. Lectotypification in Taxon 47: 889) Add three sentences at the end of Art. 37.5:

"If two or more duplicate type elements are conserved in this herbarium or institution and (a) none is explicitly labelled as "type" or "holotype" or (b) more than one is labelled "type" or "holotype", this is considered an error of curatorial practice, to be corrected. One of the elements is to be labelled as holotype, the remaining elements as isotypes. Typification is ascribed to the validating author in the original publication."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A is editorial as far as its first sentence is concerned and after slight rewording might be useful even if Art. 8 Prop. C, on which it apparently depends, were defeated. The second sentence would be misplaced in Art. 37 and might, perhaps, be considered for addition under Art. 8.2 (the pertinent Permanent Committees have been asked to advise). A "sp.c." vote may therefore be appropriate. The Special Committee on Harmonisation supports this proposal (1+2 : 1 : 1), and the Committee for Fungi (9 : 2) the combined proposal (211 a + b).

Prop. B, by the Special Committee on Lectotypification (7 : 1), is an essential improvement on the current rule, in so far as it would specify that the "single element" required by Art. 37.3 is a "single gathering or illustration", not a "single specimen or illustration" as Art. 7.2 in association with Art. 8.1 presently implies. When strictly applying the current rule one would have to deny the validity of many widely accepted names, e.g., when it is later found that a single cited gathering consists of two or more duplicates.

Prop. C, by the Committee on Lectotypification (7 : 1 : 1), addresses a difficulty that would already be solved by adoption of Prop. B. The Committee errs in stating that "Art. 37.4 and 37.5 ensure that validly published, post-1990 names of species and infraspecific taxa have holotypes". Art. 37.3 [prospectively modified by Prop. B] still applies today. Art. 37.4 merely requires that the word "type" be used to designate the [prospective] "single gathering", and Art. 37.5 demands mention of its place of deposit. As a qualification of Art. 37.5, Prop. C is therefore unnecessary. A similar provision might still be useful in the context of Art. 8, to address all situations (without date limit!) in which the type citation in a protologue, purposely or inadvertently, refers not to a single specimen but to two or more duplicates kept in the same place. The proposal would then provide for subsequent, retroactively effective restriction of the type to a single duplicate, by a curatorial measure (but is not explicit as to whom is entitled to take such action, nor does it require that it be published). An alternative solution might be to declare the corresponding duplicates as forming a single specimen under a revised Art. 8.2 (see Art. 8 Prop. A). The matter is probably too complex to be handled by means of apposite amendments during the Section Meetings, so that adoption of this or a similar proposal cannot presently be recommended.

Article 41

Prop. A (31 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 188) Add a paragraph at the beginning of Art. 41, and three Examples:

"41.0. In order to be validly published, the name of a taxon above the rank of family must be accompanied (a) by a description or diagnosis of the taxon, (b) by a reference (direct or indirect) to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis of a taxon above the rank of genus, or (c) by a reference (direct or indirect) to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis of a genus when the author of the new name indicates that no more than one genus belongs to the taxon. Such names proposed on or after 1 January 1935 must comply with Art. 36.1.

"Ex. 0. Cronquist (Integr. Syst. Class. Flow. Pl.: 94. 1981) validated Illiciales Hu ex Cronquist by a diagnosis in Latin, and Eucommiales Nemejc ex Cronquist (l.c.: 182) by a full and direct reference (Art. 32.4) to the original Latin description of the taxon’s only genus, Eucommia Oliver (1890).

"Ex. 0bis. The superorder Myrtanae (Bartl.) Takht. (Sist. Filog. Cvetk. Rast.: 295. 1967) is validated solely by the transfer of a name at the rank of class (Myrtopsida Bartl., Ord. Nat. Pl.: 225, 326. 1830, ‘Myrti’), which is associated with a description in Latin.

"Ex. 0ter. The ordinal name "Barbeyales" was proposed by Tahtadzjan (Sist. Filog. Cvetk. Rast.: 130. 1967) who based it on Barbeyaceae Rendle (1916), a family name validated by a description in English. As this is contrary to Art. 36.1, the correct citation is Barbeyales Reveal & Takht. (in Phytologia 74: 172. 1993) where a full and direct reference (Art. 32.4) was provided to the Latin description of Barbeya Schweinf. (1892), the only genus of the order as there defined."

Prop. B (32 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 190) Add a "voted Example" after Art. 41.1:

"*Ex. 1bis. The family name Peganaceae (Engl.) Tiegh. ex Takht. (Sist. Magnoliof.: 178. 1987) results from a transfer, as Tahtadzjan cited a validly published and legitimate basionym (Peganoideae Engl. in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(4): 90. 1890) and indicated the new rank (fam. et stat. nov.)."

Prop. C (179b – Trehane in Taxon 47: 947) Add a paragraph after Art. 41.2:

"41.2bis. Prior to 1 January 2001, a statement of parental taxa for a name which is a condensed formula (Art. 20.5) is acceptable in place of a description or diagnosis.

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A deals with an apparent anomaly in the present Code, where up to the level of family validating descriptions can apply only to taxa in definite rank groups, whereas no such limitation exists at the higher ranks. In theory, it might thus be possible to validate the name of an order by reference, say, to the description of an included variety (because only the provision of Art. 32.1(c) applies). The clauses (a) and (b) of the proposed new provision would likely be uncontroversial if, under (b), the word "genus" were replaced by "family". Clause (c) is illogical as it would permit suprafamilial names to be validated by reference to the diagnosis of the single included genus, whereas this is not possible for names of families or subdivisions of families (see Art. 41 Ex. 1). The latter clause has apparently been proposed because it would be stabilising in the case of vascular plants, but the same is not necessarily true in other groups, and certainly not in the fungi. The last sentence raises an important point on which the Code is at present silent, namely, how is a "new taxon" defined above the rank of genus. This question is of some consequence because only names of new taxa (but not nomina nova) are subject to the Latin requirement of Art. 36.1. The proposed rule would make it clear that new suprafamilial names are to be treated as names of new taxa, not as "transfers" (i.e. nomina nova) – but would leave the same question unanswered for families and subdivisions of families. The question also bears on the (equally controversial) parenthetic authorship citation after suprageneric names (see Art. 49 Prop. A). In view of all these insufficiently addressed aspects, the Rapporteurs advise that the Section consider establishing a new Special Committee on Suprageneric Names, to look into this and other related matters. Sympathy with this suggestion may be indicated by a "sp.c." vote.

Prop. B addresses one point alluded to above: the status of names of families and subfamilies (i.e., whether they are to be considered as names of new taxa or can in certain cases be accepted as nomina nova, here termed "transfers"). The point is, it would seem, too important to be covered just by a voted Example. Again, referral to an apposite new Special Committee on Suprageneric Names might be appropriate.

Prop. C [in which the Article number (42) was erroneous and has been editorially corrected] addresses new matter, consequent on the acceptance of both Pre. 8 Prop. B, to delete the "hybrid appendix", and Art. 20 Prop. C. The proposal would, if accepted, avoid the loss of some generic hybrid formulae that would otherwise result upon deletion of Art. H.9. Few such names were accompanied by a valid description upon publication, let alone one in Latin as required after 1934. Fewer still had a designated type (see Art. H.9 Note 1) except, by implication, when they happened to be unispecific. Prop. C would save the threatened pre-1958 formula names, but not the later ones when they had no type. The question is: does it really matter? Most such formula names refer to artificial hybrids and rather belong under the ICNCP. The few natural intergeneric hybrids, which do need names under the botanical Code, could easily have their names validated now if still necessary. The real difficulty, that of the validity of past binomials published under formula names, would be solved by accepting the next proposal (Art. 43 Prop. A).

Article 43

Prop. A (179c – Trehane in Taxon 47: 947) Add a paragraph at the end of Art. 43, and at the end of Art. 43.1, add "(but see Art. 43.2)".

"43.2. However, names of species in which the epithet is combined with a condensed formula (Art. 20.5) instead of a generic name are validly published under this Code, so long as all other conditions for valid publication are fulfilled."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A is a necessary complement to Pre. 8 Prop. B, whose consequences for hybrid formula names are spelled out by Art. 20 Prop. C. The formula names themselves can be salvaged at best partly (by Art. 41 Prop. C), provided this is deemed worthwhile. Prop. A would at least (and more importantly) preserve the validity of nothospecific names placed under them.

Article 46

Prop. A (165 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 941) Amend Art. 46.1 to read:

"46.1. In publications, particularly those dealing with taxonomy and nomenclature, it may be desirable, even when no bibliographic reference to the protologue is made, to cite the name of the author(s) who validly published the name concerned. In so doing, the following rules are to be followed."

Prop. B (203 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 951) In Art. 46.1, after "concerned", add "and the date of valid publication".

Prop. C (204 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 951) At the end of Art. 46 Note 1, insert: ", at least by its date".

Prop. D (65 – Yatskievych & Wagner in Taxon 47: 773) Add a sentence at the end of Art. 46.6, "In cases where there is no internal evidence of authorship, external evidence may be used to determine authorship"; and an Example:

"Ex. 22bis. Authorship of the names, such as Oenothera macrocarpa, in the work known as "Cat. Pl. Upper Louisiana. 1813", a catalogue of plants available from the Fraser Brothers Nursery, in which no authorship appears anywhere in the document, should be attributed to Thomas Nuttall based on external evidence (cf. Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 105: 785. 1981)."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A, supported (3+1 : 1) by the Special Committee on Harmonisation, reflects the current trend not to use author citations indiscriminately in contexts where they do not play a useful role. Acceptance, particularly in conjunction with Rec. 46E Prop. A, would hopefully avoid situations in which publishers and editors require authors to add what many would perceive as mere nomenclatural noise.

Prop. B and C, also supported (4 : 1 and 3+1 : 1) by the Special Committee on Harmonisation, would encourage in botany what is already current practice in zoology, viz., to add the date after the author citation, in those cases when it is useful. This practice is increasingly being followed by botanists and spelling it out in the Code would do much to further encourage it. Prop. C is an editorial consequence of adoption of Prop. B, and both presuppose (but are not conditioned by) acceptance of Prop. A.

Prop. D has the declared intent of minimising the attribution of names to "Anonymous". It is probably unnecessary and inappropriate in the suggested context. The words "author citation" in Art. 46.6, and elsewhere in that Article, refer to the determination of the correct authorship of individual names within a publication. These rules do not impinge on the determination of authorship of the work as such, which is a bibliographic matter.

Recommendation 46A

Prop. A (156 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 939) Replace Rec. 46A.2-3 by the following (and add Examples as by the present parenthetical inserts):

"46A.2. The abbreviation should be long enough to be distinctive, and should normally end with a consonant that, in the full name, precedes a vowel. One of the last characteristic consonants of the name may be added when this is customary."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A offers a new and hopefully improved wording for the present Recommendation which, if taken literally, would sometimes result in awkward and utterly unfamiliar abbreviations of author names.

New Recommendation 46E

Prop. A (205 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 951) Add a Recommendation after Rec. 46D:

"46E.1. Authors and editors of botanical publications are urged to restrict the use of author citations and dates to works in which authorship and date have been critically assessed, such as formal taxonomic and nomenclatural works".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A, supported by the Special Committee on Harmonisation (3+2 : 0), has the same intent as Art. 46. Prop A and would reinforce the latter’s thrust. The implication that the authorship and date of names appearing in taxonomic works have always been "critically assessed" may sound a bit overoptimistic if not ingenuous. Leaving out that phrase might be preferable (vote "ed.c." if you agree).

Article 49

Prop. A (33 – Reveal in Taxon 47: 190) Add the following paragraph to Art. 49, and four Examples:

"49.2. When citation of a basionym is the sole means of validating a name of a new taxon above the rank of genus, the author of the earlier, name-bearing suprageneric name (the author of the basionym) must be cited in parentheses, followed by the name of the author who effected the transfer (the author of the new name).

"Ex. 8. Reveal (in Novon 2: 235. 1992) transferred the family name Ranunculaceae Juss. (Gen. Pl.: 231. 1789) to the rank of subclass; the correct name and authorship is Ranunculidae (Juss.) Reveal.

"Ex. 9. The correct authorship of the family name based on Poa L. is Poaceae (R. Br.) Barnhart (in Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 22: 7. 1895), as Barnhart only made a reference to the tribe Poeae R. Br. (in Flinders, Voy. Terra Austr. 2: 582. 1814).

"Ex. 10. Even though Candolle (Prodr. 1: 624. 1824) cited Cedrelaceae R. Br. (in Flinders, Voy. Terra Austr. 2: 595, 596. 1814) when he transferred the family name to the rank of tribe, the correct authorship of the tribe is Cedreleae DC., because Candolle provided a validating Latin diagnosis.

"Ex. 11. When Dumortier (Fl. Belg.: 59. 1827) proposed Lactucinae, he attributed the name to Cassini (in Cuvier, Dict. Sci. Nat. 20: 355. 1821) who validly published the name of a tribe, Lactuceae Cass. As Dumortier transferred the taxon from tribe to subtribe, and only provided a reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis (Art. 32.1), the correct citation of the name at the new rank is Lactucinae (Cass.) Dumort."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A addresses the question of parenthetical author citations after names of suprageneric taxa. Past practice has varied in this respect, not only among authors, but even within the Code itself, partly depending on whether one considers suprageneric names as potential basionyms (as the proposer does) or potential replaced synonyms (as the definition in Art. 33.2 presently implies). Whether the proposed solution is the best and only practical one is doubtful and indirectly hinges, among other things, on the fate of other proposals on suprageneric names. If, as suggested previously (Art. 41 Prop. A-B), a Special Committee on Suprageneric Names is appointed, considering the present proposal could be made part of its mandate.

Recommendation 50E

Prop. A (157 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 939) In Rec. 50E.1, replace "If a generic or specific name" by "If a name of a family, genus or species", and add reference to App. II.

Prop. B (213 – Kuyper & al. in Taxon 47: 955) Reword Rec. 50E.2, add a phrase at the end of Rec. 50E Ex. 2, and a further Example:

"50E.2. If a name has been adopted by Fries or Persoon, and thereby sanctioned (see Art. 13.1(d)) and endowed with a privileged typification status (see Art. 7.8), ": Fr." or ": Pers." should be added in a full citation. The same convention should be used for the basionym of the sanctioned name, if it has one, and for all combinations based on either.

[Ex. 2.] ", and a subsequent combination based on it as Chalciporus piperatus (Bull. : Fr.) Bataille.

"Ex. 3. Agaricus sarcocephalus Fr. 1815 : Fr. was sanctioned as Agaricus compactus [unranked] sarcocephalus (Fr. : Fr.) Fr. 1821; a subsequent combination based on it may be cited as Psathyrella sarcocephala (Fr. : Fr.) Singer."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A would remedy an apparently unintentional omission. It is current practice to add "nom. cons." after conserved family names. It is supported (5 : 0) by the Special Committee on Harmonisation

Prop. B, favoured by the Committee for Fungi (10 : 0 : 1), would effect two different things. On the one hand, it would (through its second sentence and the supplementary Example) give more precise guidance as to how sanctioning is to be indicated in the case of parenthetical author citations. On the other hand it would, by removing the words "if it is desirable", tend to generalise mention of the sanctioning author beyond what is presently intended. The first change has some merit. The second change, being potentially controversial, might perhaps better be minimised or avoided (vote "ed.c." if you share the latter concern).

Article 52

Prop. A (158 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 939) In Art. 52.2, after clause (b), add: "or (c) of the previously conserved type under Art. 14.9", re-lettering the following clauses.

Prop. B (39 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 488) In Art. 52.1, delete the phrase "unless conserved (Art. 14) or sanctioned (Art. 15)"; at the end of Art. 52.1, add a second reference, so that the parenthesis reads: "(but see Art. 52.3 and 52.4)."; and add a paragraph at the end of Art. 52:

"52.4. A name that was nomenclaturally superfluous when published can become legitimate by conservation (Art. 14), by sanctioning (Art. 15), or through the side-effect of an act of conservation or rejection (Art. 6.4)."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A would remedy the present provision’s failure to mention "previously conserved types" among the elements that, when included, will cause illegitimacy of the name of a new taxon. The suggested addition is logical and apparently reflects the current practice of the permanent nomenclature committees. The proposer suggests that the Editorial Committee be empowered to add a Note, specifying that conservation takes effect upon publication of the relevant General Committee decision in Taxon, as must presently be inferred from Art. 14.14.

Prop. B is contingent upon the adoption of either or both Art. 6 Prop. A and B. It can be referred to the Editorial Committee; the addition should perhaps be treated as a Note.

Article 53

Prop. A (159 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 939) In Art. 53.5, last line, instead of "the same epithet". write: "the same or a confusingly similar epithet"; and delete reference to infraspecific names in Art. 53.3.

Prop. B (01 – Green & al. in Taxon 45: 141) Add a paragraph and an Example at the end of Art. 53, deleting part of Art. 60 Ex. 19, after the semicolon:

"53.7. When the final epithets of heterotypic names of species in the same genus, or of infraspecific taxa in the same species, are substantives in the genitive case and based on the same personal name, they are to be treated as homonyms if they differ only in the genitive termination of these epithets.

"Ex. 17. Podlech & Kirchhoff (in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 11: 432. 1974) named Astragalus "matthewsii" after a woman, Victoria A. Matthews, and this is to be corrected to A. matthewsiae Podlech & Kirchhoff. The latter is confusingly similar to, and to be treated as a later homonym of, A. matthewsii S. Watson (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 18: 192. 1883). The correct name is A. victoriae Podlech & Kirchhoff (in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 12: 375. 1976)."

Prop. C (02 – Green & al. in Taxon 45: 142) Modify proposal (01) by adding, after "in the genitive case" the words "and either both singular or both plural".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A would extend the present rule on "parahomonyms" (Art. 53.3) to the ranks of subdivisions of a genus, not presently covered, due as the proposer explains to an historical accident. It would further, by treating the matter under Art. 53.5 rather than 53.3, make it clear that the proscription of parahomonyms also applies when different subordinate ranks are involved (as is now the case for true homonymy only). Besides, the proposal would effect that Art. 53 would treat the different ranks in a natural sequence.

Prop. B and C would rule that epithet pairs of a very rare, specific category be treated as confusingly similar. Confusability does not, however, appear to be the criterion applied, rather perhaps the proposers’ dislike of a particular Example in the Code. Names and epithets of different gender have not so far, by any tradition, been treated as confusingly similar, nor do the incriminated epithets, matthewsii and matthewsiae, appear to lend themselves to confusion – hardly more than, say, victoriae and victoris that would remain unaffected (since Victor and Victoria are not the same name) unless they happened to be derived from a family name (when they would be ruled confusable). The cases in point are certainly few, yet a random search yielded at least one case (Viola ´ brauniae Grower of N. America and the European V. ´ braunii Borb.) in which the proposal’s effect would be disruptive. Simultaneous adoption of Prop. C, while logical, would but minimally alleviate the effects of Prop. B, as no concrete case is known in which it would apply.

Article 54

Prop. A (206 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 951) Add a clause after Art. 54.1(b), as follows:

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A, supported by the Special Committee on Harmonisation (3+1 : 0 : 1), would introduce a rule to take effect after the next subsequent Congress subject to re-ratification there. The proposal would rule that, as soon as this becomes practicable through easy access to lists of available zoological names, future creation of inter-Code homonyms be proscribed. The idea is commendable, and acceptance of the proposal might serve as an incentive to parallel innovations in the other nomenclatural Codes. Indeed the bacteriological Code (Rule 51b(4)) already precludes homonymy between names of taxa "of bacteria, fungi, algae, protozoa, or viruses". However, not all may agree that introducing such a rule far in advance of its possible implementation is necessary. The new Recommendation proposed in parallel (Rec. 54A Prop. A) might suffice to forewarn of an intended future ban on interregnal homonymy.

New Recommendation 54A

Prop. A (208 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 951) Add a Recommendation after Art. 54:

"54A.1 Authors naming new taxa should, as far as is practicable, avoid using such names as already exist for zoological and bacteriological groups."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A, supported by the Special Committee on Harmonisation (4+1 : 0), covers the same ground as Art. 54 Prop. A but would take effect immediately. As an incentive to limit further instances of inter-Code homonymy, it may be acceptable even to those opposing Art. 54 Prop. A on formal grounds.

Article 55

Prop. A (57 – Isoviita in Taxon 47: 764) In Art. 55.1, delete the clause ", autonyms excepted (Art. 22.1)," and add at the end: ", except when the epithet repeats that generic name unaltered, in which case the name is not validly published (see also Art. 23.4)".

Prop. B (58 – Isoviita in Taxon 47: 764) In Art. 55.2, delete the clause ", autonyms excepted (Art. 22.2)," and add at the end: ", except when the final epithet repeats the epithet of that specific name unaltered, in which case the name is not validly published"

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A and B cover the same ground as Art. 22 Prop. A and Art. 27 Prop. A (q.v.) and offer an analogous solution. If favoured in principle, the two present proposals may be referred to the Editorial Committee to choose whichever wording is considered more appropriate.

Article 56

Prop. A (46 – Weber in Taxon 47: 495) Add a paragraph after Art. 56.1:

"56.1bis. Certain species names that have been in use for a long time for aggregates of numerous species are to be used only in this broad sense and not for segregate species. Such names are listed as rejected at the segregate species level, in App. IV, with mention of the conditions for their use at the aggregate level."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A reintroduces a matter that was discussed at length at the Tokyo Congress, where a similar proposal failed because of its being specifically aimed at a finite number of cases. The present proposal avoids this perceived bias by providing a mechanism for qualified rejection of aggregate names by listing them in the existing App. IV after appropriate committee action. The new provision would make an exception to the present Art. 56.1 by permitting use of such rejected names at the aggregate level (and only there), under conditions to be specified. The proposal appears to offer an elegant and flexible solution to a disturbing problem. Acceptance will imply a mandate to the Editorial Committee to adapt the introduction to App. IV accordingly.

Article 58

Prop. A (160 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 940) Replace the whole of Art. 58 with a single paragraph, transferring Ex. 1 to Art. 23.4 but maintaining Ex. 2-3.

"58.1. The epithet in an illegitimate name may if available be used in a different combination, at the same or a different rank, if no other epithet is available from a name that has priority at that rank. The resulting name is then treated as new, either as a nomen novum with the same type as the illegitimate name (see also Art. 7.5 and Art. 33 Note 2), or as the name of a new taxon with a different type. Its priority does not date back to the publication of the illegitimate name."

Prop. B (59 – Isoviita in Taxon 47: 764) At the end of Art. 58.3, add the words:

"On the same conditions, a previous illegitimate generic name may be used as a subdivisional epithet or, when a new generic name is required, the epithet of a previous illegitimate subdivisional name may be adopted."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A would result in a substantial simplification of the wording of Art. 58, which is presently perceived as being unnecessarily convoluted, which partly reflects its chequered history. The rewording aims at retaining potentially useful features of the Article, although its outright deletion would be of no real consequence. The proposal is essentially editorial and would not result in any change of substance. As the proposer suggested, the reworded Article could easily be combined with Art. 55 if this would be useful to free a number for an additional Article (as per Art. 59bis Prop. A).

Prop B apparently results from the perception that Art. 58 provides more than just advice and guidance. The proposed text could be editorially combined with Prop. A, to make explicit, if this is desired, how the Code functions in analogous situations at the generic-infrageneric interface.

Recommendation 58A

Prop. A (60 – Isoviita in Taxon 47: 765; 161 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 940) Delete Rec. 58A.

Prop. B (61 – Isoviita in Taxon 47: 765) In Rec. 58A.1, replace the words "the same taxon" with: "a taxon that is considered closely related to the one for which the illegitimate name was published"

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A has been made twice independently. As both proposers point out, the advice given by Rec. 58A is often unsound and may at times be misleading.

Prop. B offers an alternative to simple deletion of the Rec. 58A (Prop. A), but the usefulness of the reworded, substantially different Recommendation is questionable.

Article 59

Prop. A (215 – Jørgensen & Gams in Taxon 47: 956) Reword Art. 59.4 as follows:

"59.4. Irrespective of priority, names with a teleomorphic type take precedence over names with an anamorphic type when both types are judged to belong to the same holomorphic taxon."

Prop. B (214 – Jørgensen & Gams in Taxon 47: 956) Add a sentence at the end of Art. 59.5:

"This should, however, be avoided when the teleomorphic connection is firmly established and there is no practical need for separate names (e.g. in rust fungi and members of the Trichocomaceae)."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A, supported by the Committee for Fungi (10 : 1) and by the Special Committee on Harmonisation (3+1 : 0 : 1), offers an improved wording for the paragraph defining the nomenclatural relationship between anamorphic and teleomorphic names but would not change its substance. The proposed text illustrates the appropriateness of the terminological distinction suggested in Gen. Prop. C.

Prop. B, also supported by the Committee for Fungi (8 : 2 : 1), aims to add weight to the existing Art. 59 Ex. 2. It is worded as a Recommendation and may, if found to be acceptable, be conferred such a status by the Editorial Committee.

New Article 59bis

Prop. A (99b – Chaloner & al. in Taxon 47: 909) Add a whole Article to follow (or precede) Art. 59:

"59bis.1. Fossil non-algal taxa are parataxa (see Art. 1.2) which for nomenclatural purposes comprise only those parts, life-history stages, or preservation states of organisms that are represented by the corresponding nomenclatural types, and whose names for purposes of priority compete only with names based on a fossil type representing that same part, life-history stage, or preservation state.

"Note 1. This provision does not prevent the assignment of fossil parataxa of a rank lower than genus to a non-fossil genus.

"Note 2. This provision does not preclude the informal use of names of fossil parataxa to refer to the theoretical concept of extinct taxa of whole plants."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A belongs to the set of palaeobotanical proposals introduced by Art. 1 Prop. 1-2 (q.v.) and offers an alternative to the second set of such proposals, to which Art. 11 Prop. G is central. The concept introduced here aims at accommodating palaeobotanical practice, which regards names pertaining to particular plant parts or preservation states as belonging to distinct, not mutually competing categories. The concept of whole organisms and of their evolutionary units is of course useful in theory, but is rarely if ever more than hypothetical. It is therefore seen as inappropriate, and largely incompatible with the type concept, to make formal nomenclature depend on such theoretical constructs. Some algae, most notably the diatoms (Bacillariophyceae), are a traditional exception that will not be affected by the proposed new rule. The proposal has been referred to the Committee for Fossil Plants for an opinion. The Special Committee on Harmonisation is split on the proposal (2+1 : 3).

Article 60

Prop. A (106 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 920) Reword Art. 60.1 as follows (additions are in italics):

"60.1. The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors (Art. 60.3) and the standardisations imposed by Art. 60.5 (u/v or i/j used interchangeably), 60.6 (diacritical signs and ligatures), 60.8 (compounding forms), 60.9 (hyphens), 60.10 (apostrophes), and 60.11 (terminations; see also Art. 32.6). In all other cases, an altered spelling should not be used, unless it is conserved or a proposal for conservation is pending or being prepared (see Art. 14.11)."

Prop. B (138 – Perry & Nicolson in Taxon 47: 933) Add a paragraph after Art. 60.1:

"60.1bis. For a generic name, only those corrections made by the original author(s) in the same work where the name was validly published are to be accepted, unless the name was published in a journal, when corrections made in a subsequent issue, published within 3 years, must also be accepted."

Prop. C (139 – Perry & Nicolson in Taxon 47: 933) Add a second paragraph after Art. 60.1:

"60.1ter. For specific or infraspecific epithets, only the following corrections are to be accepted: (a) all corrections made by the original author(s) in the same work where the specific or infraspecific name was validly published, plus, if the name was published in a journal, all those corrections made in a subsequent issue, published within 3 years; (b) the correction of errors evident from the protologue; (c) the correction of errors that it can be demonstrated were the result of a copyist’s or printer’s error (e.g. upside down letters, incorrect sequence of letters)."

Prop. D (140 – Perry & Nicolson in Taxon 47: 933) In the second line of Art. 60.1, add "(but see Art. 60.1bis for generic names and 60.1ter for specific and infraspecific epithets)" after "errors".

Prop. E (109 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 921) Add two Examples after Art. 60 Ex. 1:

"Ex. 1bis. Cionosicys Griseb. (1860; original spelling occurring twice) is not to be altered to "Cionosicyos", as in Bentham & Hooker (Gen. Pl. 1: 826. 1867). Jeffrey (in Kew Bull. 25: 200. 1971) was correct in adopting the original spelling.

"Ex. 1ter. Stenanona Standl. (1929) and Dicranoweisia Lindb. ex Milde (1869) are not to be corrected to "Stenannona" and "Dicranoweissia" by analogy to Annona L. (1753) and Weissia Hedw. (1801), respectively."

Prop. F (142 – Perry & Nicolson in Taxon 47: 934) Add the following Example after Art. 60 Ex. 3:

"Solanum rohrii Wright (1894) was based on the misreading of the name "Roth" on a herbarium label. However, as this error is not evident from the protologue, the name must not be corrected to S. "rothii"."

Prop. G (143 – Perry & Nicolson in Taxon 47: 934) Rewrite Art. 60 Ex. 4 as follows:

"Indigofera "longipednuculata" Y. Y. Fang & C. Z. Zheng (1983) is to be corrected to I. longipedunculata since it must be assumed that a printer’s error has resulted in a "u" and "n" being reversed."

Prop. H (107 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 921) Delete Art. 60 Note 1 and Ex. 5.

Prop. I (108 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 921) Reduce Art. 60.2 to a Note, to precede Ex. 1.

Prop. J (141 – Perry & Nicolson in Taxon 47: 933) Delete Art. 60.3.

Prop. K (110 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 921) Replace Art. 60.3 by the following text:

"60.3. If there is a clear typographical error (i.e., evident from the name itself, without study of the protologue) a correction has always to be made. For the rest, there is a restricted liberty to correct an orthographical error. The liberty of correcting a name is to be used with reserve, especially if it concerns a generic name or if the change affects the first letter of the name or epithet."

Prop. L (122 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 926) At the end of Art. 60.3, add the following sentence:

"For generic names, (one of the) original author(s) only is allowed to correct an orthographical error."

Prop. M (123 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 926) After Art. 60.3, add an Example:

"Ex. 6ter. Corrections to be accepted: Candolle (Apr 1821) published "Dyplotaxis"; in another publication (Mai 1821, now with the derivation of the name given) he corrected to Diplotaxis. – Cassini (1816) published "Brachyscome", a spelling that he corrected to Brachycome in 1825. – Mueller (1873) published Acicalyptus "fullageri" and Lomaria "fullageri", mentioning the collector Fullagar in both cases. Mueller’s (1875) corrections to "fullagari" have to be accepted (even though the original spellings could have involved latinisation of the personal name); Art. 60.11 prescribes a further correction, to "fullagarii"."

Prop. N (124 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 926) Amend and expand Art. 60 Ex. 6 as follows:

"Ex. 6. Corrections not to be accepted: The spelling of the generic name Lespedeza Michx. (1803) is not be altered, although it commemorates Vicente Manuel de Céspedes (see Rhodora 36: 130-132, 390-392. 1934), because Michaux did not make the correction. – Ancylobothrys was published by Pierre (1898); Huber (1963) corrected the spelling to "Ancylobotrys", and irrespective of whether his rationale (Greek derivation) is correct or wrong, the name must remain unaltered. – Albizia was published by Durazzini (1772), and even though it is said to commemorate Albizzi, Bentham’s (1844) correction to "Albizzia" is not acceptable."

Prop. O (125 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 927) After Art. 60.3, add the following Note and Example:

"Note 1ter. If the authorship of a name includes an "author ex" citation, that author is allowed to correct just as an original author.

"Ex. 6quater. Correction to be accepted: "Gymnocalicium" Pfeiff. ex Mittler (1844) was corrected by Pfeiffer (1845) when he adopted the spelling Gymnocalycium."

Prop. P (126 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 927) After Art. 60.3, add the following Note:

"Note 1quater. When noticing an orthographical variant in a later publication of the original author, one should not easily admit that it corresponds to a deliberate decision to correct the original spelling of the name."

Prop. Q (127 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 927) At the end of Art. 60.3, add the following three sentences:

"For epithets, (one of the) original author(s) is allowed to correct an orthographical error. In addition, if it is evident from the protologue that an error occurred in the spelling of an epithet, any author is allowed to correct this error. One should not correct if there is doubt that an error occurred."

Prop. R (128 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 927) Reword and expand Art. 60 Ex. 2, add another Example, and place both after Art. 60.3:

"Ex. 2. Corrections to be accepted: Globba "brachycarpa" Baker (1890) can be treated as a typographical error for G. trachycarpa (original publication: "ovary rugose", when trachys means rough; correction by Sprague in J. Bot. 59: 349. 1921). – Hetaeria "alba" Ridl. (1896) can be treated as a typographical error for H. alta (original publication: "flowers yellow"; in 1907 Ridley stated alba to be a misprint; correction by Sprague in J. Bot. 59: 349. 1921). – Anemone ‘uarcissifolia’ L. (1753) includes a clear typographical error of the first letter of the epithet, and from the protologue with a Bauhin citation "... narcissi flore ..." it is evident that "-folia" is an error for -flora.

"Ex. 2bis. Corrections not to be accepted: Sesbania sphaerocarpa Welw. 1859 was changed by Baker (1871) to S. "sphaerosperma". Even though the type specimen appears to be labelled S. sphaerosperma, and S. sphaerocarpa thus is believed to be a writing error, the spelling may not be altered because the label does not belong to the protologue."

Prop. S (111 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 921) Place Art. 60 Ex. 4 after Art. 60.3, amended as follows:

"Ex. 4. Clear typographical error: The misspelled Indigofera "longipednuculata" Y. Y. Fang & C. Z. Zheng (1983) is to be corrected to I. longipedunculata."

Prop. T (112 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 922) Add a Note after Art. 60.3, followed by Ex. 6 (second item) and a new Example:

"Note 1bis. An epithet may not be corrected because it is inappropriate, meaningless or disagreeable (see Art. 51).

"Ex. 6bis. Mammillaria esperanzaensis Boed. (1933) may not be corrected to M. "esperanzensis", as done by Heath (in J. Mammillaria Soc. 29: 57. 1989)."

Prop. U (166 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 941) In Art. 60.6, delete the first part of the third sentence, to the semicolon.

Prop. V (113 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 922) Replace the diaeresis clause in Art. 60.6 by the following:

"The diaeresis, used in the original publication of names such as Cephaëlis and Isoëtes to indicate that a vowel is to be pronounced separately from the preceding vowel, is not permitted;"

Prop. W (131 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 929) In Art. 60.6, replace the diaeresis clause by the following text:

"The diaeresis, indicating that a vowel is to be pronounced separately from the preceding vowel (as in Cephaëlis, Isoëtes) is permissible, but it may be deleted;"

Prop. X (132 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 929) In Art. 60.6, replace the diaeresis clause by the following text:

"The diaeresis, indicating that a vowel is to be pronounced separately from the preceding vowel (as in Cephaëlis, Isoëtes) is permissible; it is not permitted, however, to add a diaeresis in a name in which it has not been published originally."

Prop. Y (168 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 942) Delete the first sentence of Rec. 60C.2, and add a paragraph after Art. 60.6.

"60.bis. Epithets formed from personal names which either commemorate ancient Greek or Roman persons (whether actual or mythical), or are latinised pseudonyms, are given their appropriate Latin genitive to form substantive epithets."

Prop. Z (167 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 942) Delete Art. 60.7, move Art. 60 Ex. 9 to under Art. 60.1, and delete Art. 60 Ex. 10.

Prop. AA (135 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 931) Replace the first part of Art. 60.7, up to and including the word "preserved", by:

"60.7. When a new generic name or an epithet is derived from a latinised personal, geographic or vernacular name, it is not permitted to alter the latinisation,"

Prop. BB (144 – Perry & Nicolson in Taxon 47: 934) In Art. 60 Ex. 10, second line, add "of the intended epithet, "billardierii", obtained from that latinisation," after "termination"; and in the last line replace "is correctly spelled" with "is to be spelled".

Prop. CC (145 – Perry & Nicolson in Taxon 47: 934) Make Art. 60 Ex. 10 a "voted Example".

Prop. DD (146 – Perry & Nicolson in Taxon 47: 934) Add the following Note and two Examples after Art. 60 Ex. 10:

"Note 1sexies. For the purpose of forming a specific or infraspecific epithet, an intended latinisation of a modern personal name cannot be preserved if the only change in orthography was (a) the omission of the final vowel or (b), in the case of a name ending in a silent or unaccented "e", changing that "e" to an "i".

"Ex. 10bis. Blandfordia "backhousii" was named by Gunn & Lindley (1845) after James Backhouse. The intended latinisation, "Backhousius" (in nominative), resulted from changing the silent "e" to "i", and so Gunn and Lindley’s latinisation cannot be preserved and the name is correctly spelled B. backhousei Gunn & Lindley.

"Ex. 10ter. Briquet (1894) named Hyptis glaziovii to honour A. F. E. Glaziou. Briquet’s intentional latinisation, "Glaziovius" (in nominative), resulted from changing "u" to "v", and so Briquet’s spelling H. glaziovii is to be preserved and must not be altered to H. "glazioui"."

Prop. EE (136 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 931) In Art. 60.7, replace the phrase "except for terminations covered by Art. 60.11." with "except as ruled in Art. 60.11.", add a sentence at the end of Art. 60.11, and reword Ex. 10:

"If an epithet formed under Rec. 60C.2bis results in an ending with -erii, this must be corrected to -eri."

"Ex. 10. "Zygophyllum billardierii" was named by Candolle (1824) for J. J. H. de Labillardière (de la Billardière). When latinised, the name is Billardierius, and a substantive epithet "billardierii" could be derived from it; this termination is not acceptable under Art. 60.11 and the name is correctly spelled Z. billardieri DC."

Prop. FF (134 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 931) Add a paragraph at the end of Art. 60, followed by a Note and an Example:

"60.12. On or after 1 January 1950, making epithets derived from modern names in the manner described in Rec. 60C.2bis is forbidden. If after this date a new name is published with such an epithet, it must be corrected in conformity with Rec. 60C.1.

"Note 4. This rule only concerns names of new taxa, not new combinations of which the basionym was published before 1950.

"Ex. 21. "Glochidion melvilliorum" Airy Shaw (1971) is named after R. Melville and E. F. Melville; because the name was published after 1 January 1950, it has to be corrected to G. melvilleorum."

Prop. GG (169 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 942) Delete Art. 60 Note 2 and Ex. 15, and reword Art. 60.9 as follows:

"60.9. The use of a hyphen in a name of a genus or in an epithet is treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen, except in a specific or infraspecific epithet formed of words that usually stand independently, or in which the letters before and after the hyphen are the same, when the hyphen is to be used."

Prop. HH (114 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 923) Insert the following sentences at the beginning of Art. 60.9, delete Art. 60 Note 2, and replace Ex. 15:

"60.9. In a generic name, the use of a hyphen is not permitted. If a generic name was published in two words joined by a hyphen, these words have to be united into one word.

"Ex. 15. Hyphen to be omitted: Pseudoabsidia Bainier (1903), not "Pseudo-Absidia", nor "Pseudo-absidia"; Laurocerasus Duhamel (1755), not "Lauro-Cerasus", nor "Lauro-cerasus".

Prop. II (116 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 923) Upon acceptance of Prop. (114), insert a third and fourth sentence in Art. 60.9, and delete the Scirpus sect. Pseudoëriophorum portion in Ex. 13:

"In the name of a subdivision of a genus, in a compound epithet the use of a hyphen is not permitted. If a subdivisional epithet was published in two separate words or in two words joined by a hyphen, these words have to be united into one word."

Prop. JJ (117 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 924) In the first line of the present Art. 60.9, add the words italicised below:

"60.9. The use of a hyphen in a compound epithet of an (infra)specific name is treated as an error to be "

Prop. KK (118 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 924) Add a Note after Art. 60.9, with an Example:

"Note 1quinquies. It is not permitted to add a hyphen in a compound epithet that originally was published as one word without a hyphen.

"Ex. 14bis. It is not permitted to add a hyphen in Isoglossa eliasbandae Brummitt (1985), named after the collector Elias Banda."

Prop. LL (137 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 932) Add a Note after Art. 60.9:

"Note 2bis. If an epithet was published with a hyphen that is permitted, it is not permitted to delete this hyphen."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A to LL are for the most part the product or by-product of the Special Committee on Orthography. Of the no less than 38 proposals, 12 are from the Committee itself, 13 and 9 represent minority opinions submitted by respectively the Secretary and Convenor of that Committee, and only 4 arise from a non-member of the Committee. In consequence the Section will face a somewhat daunting and chaotic situation, and, as already suggested (Art. 20 Prop. B), might in despair choose to refer most or all relevant proposals to a new Special Committee on Orthography (a preference for this solution can be expressed by a "sp.c." vote). Their sympathy for this solution notwithstanding, the Rapporteurs have nevertheless endeavoured to evaluate the proposals globally and to assess each on its own merit. The Committee had to face two major problems, its small size (only 5-6 voting members) and its unbalanced composition (to quote from its own report, "two of its members were extreme non-correctors", four "would correct under strict conditions only", and only one held that established usage should have an overriding role to play). The Rapporteurs are of the opinion that neither approach is ideal, since both treat spelling as a value in itself and not merely as a feature of labelling for the purposes of communication. The "non-correctors" would force working taxonomists to constantly refer back to the original publication of all names, which nowadays, when a majority are working outside the large traditional institutions, is impractical and puts those working in less-developed countries at a disadvantage. The "traditionalist" point of view is certainly more flexible but still depends on large library resources and has the drawback of requiring interpretative judgement, with consequent insecurity and inconsistency. The third option, hardly if at all discussed in the Committee, is the promotion of standardised spellings, which the Rapporteurs perceive as both expedient and user-friendly, being easy to memorise and applicable with but minimal literature resources. The Rapporteurs recognise that such a policy might result in numerous spelling changes in the short term; however, spelling changes, especially when they follow a controlled, predictable pattern, are not destabilising in the same way as name changes. If the Section shares this appreciation, it might consider defining the mandate of the proposed new Special Committee accordingly.

Prop. A-T all concern the general issue of correctability. Not surprisingly in view of the foregoing remarks, none of them is really satisfactory. Prop. A (Special Committee on Orthography: 4 : 2) would allow only a few standard corrections of spellings and depend on Committee decisions under Art. 14 for the rest. Prop. B and C would restrict correctability of generic names to cases where the correction happens to have been effected by the original author, whilst for epithets other typographical and "evident" errors would also be correctable. Prop. D-I, M-N, and R-T are essentially editorial (Special Committee on Orthography: 4 : 2 on E, H, T; 5 : 1 on I, S), although not all of the suggested Examples would be appropriate with their current wording (Prop. G and Prop. S, which are largely the same, both insist on mis-correcting the Code!). The deletion suggested in Prop. J would be unwise unless Prop. B and C were adopted. Prop. K (Special Committee on Orthography: 4 : 1) would introduce into Art. 60.3 the mention of typographical errors, which are already dealt with in Art. 60.1. Prop. L is a simplified and less restrictive version of Prop. B. Prop. O is related to the foregoing and would provide for one supplementary correcting option, whereas Prop. Q is apparently a variant of Prop. C and is partly worded as a Recommendation.

Prop. U-X all address the question of the diaeresis. Of these, Prop. U adopts the sensible point of view that the diaeresis is a mere pronunciation device for which no ruling in the Code is required, just as no one would think of regulating the use or otherwise of accents expressing phonetic stress; this change might be safely implemented without Special Committee reappraisal. Prop. V (Special Committee on Orthography: 4 : 1; Special Committee on Harmonisation: 4 : 0 : 1), W and X (Special Committee on Harmonisation: 3 : 1 : 1) would provide for variant treatments of the "diaeresis problem" – on the assumption that there were such a problem.

Prop. Y-FF are concerned with various aspects of the Latinisation of personal names for the purpose of their use in epithets. As there appears to be disagreement of views on all relevant points (to which Rec. 60C Prop. A-F are also relevant), and as none of the proposals has Special Committee backing, it would presumably be unwise to accept any of them at this time.

Prop. GG-LL (Special Committee on Orthography: 4 : 1 on HH, KK; 3 : 2 on II, JJ; Special Committee on Harmonisation: 1+2 : 1 : 1 on GG; 2+2 : 0 : 1 on HH; 2+1 : 1 : 1 on JJ and KK; 2+1 : 2 on LL) are all concerned with the "hyphen problem". There appears to be a consensus developing that the use of a hyphen should be proscribed in generic names and in epithets of subdivisions of genera. In the rationale to Prop. GG, a list of less than two dozen originally hyphenated generic names is given, which shows the effect that would ensue from a change of the rule. If on the basis of this information the change seems acceptable, it can be effected most conveniently by adopting Prop. GG, since Prop. HH-JJ combined would have the same effect. Prop. GG would in addition achieve clarity with respect to the use and non-use of a hyphen in specific and infraspecific epithets. Conversely, Prop. KK and LL would place emphasis on usage in the protologue and would therefore result in an inconsistent practice with respect to hyphenated vs. non-hyphenated epithets.

Recommendation 60B

Prop. A (170 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 943) In Rec. 60B.1, convert clause (d) into a Note and add reference to Art. 60.2 after the word "spelling".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A can be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Recommendation 60C

Prop. A (119 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 924) In Rec. 60C.1(a), insert the phrase:

"gray-i for Asa Gray (m), because a terminal y functions as a [semi]vowel".

Prop. B (36 – Zhilin & al. in Taxon 47: 195) Add an Example to Rec. 60C.1(a), after the words "Fedtschenko (m)", as follows:

", fedtschenko-ae for Fedtschenko (f)".

Prop. C (47 – Stearn in Taxon 47: 496) Add a sentence at the end of Rec. 60C.1(b): "However, the genitive form of a feminine forename ending in a consonant is formed by adding -ae (not -iae), e.g. Aganosma edithae, Arundinaria murielae."

Prop. D (35 – Zhilin & al. in Taxon 47: 195) Add a clause to Rec. 60C.1 and refer to it ["(but see Rec. 60C.1(e))"] at the end of clauses (a) and (c):

"(e) If the personal name is a feminine surname formed by inflexion from the corresponding masculine surname, it is given the feminine termination of the latinised form of the corresponding masculine surname, from which epithets are formed as in Rec. 60C.1(a) and (c) (e.g., Taraxacum pojarkoviae for the Russian feminine surname Pojarkova (latinised as Pojarkovia from the masculine Pojarkov latinised as Pojarkovius), not T. pojarkovae; Phoenicopsis orlovskiae for the Russian feminine surname Orlovskaja (latinised as Orlovskia from the masculine Orlovski latinised as Orlovskius), not P. orlovskajae as originally spelled)."

Prop. E (133 – Zijlstra in Taxon 47: 930) Place the second sentence of Rec. 60C.2 in its own paragraph 60C.2bis, and add a sentence:

"Latinising modern names before a termination is added, other than in the manner prescribed in Rec. 60C.1, should be avoided (e.g. glaziovii from Glaziou, loureiri from Loureiro, backhousii from Backhouse)."

Prop. F (171 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 943) In Rec. 60C.3, replace "original" with "usual".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A (Special Committee on Orthography: 4 : 1) and B can both be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Prop. C endeavours to bring the Code into line with traditional usage when genitive substantival epithets are derived from female forenames. While the intent is commendable, one may wonder whether treating such names under Rec. 60C.2, i.e. as possessing a well-established latinised form, would not be both simpler and less risky. This could be achieved editorially (e.g. by means of an apposite Example), and those favouring the latter approach may indicate this by voting "ed.c.". One should note that the proposer chose all his examples from the English language, and that in other languages the situation may be very different from the one he perceived; e.g., Spanish Concepción will yield an epithet conceptionis (13 cases in Index kewensis), outnumbering concepcionis (7 cases), much more readily than concepcionae (no such usage found).

Prop. D would introduce a change in the present provision, based on grammatical correctness but contrary to preponderant usage (the proposers estimate that upon adoption about two thirds of the corresponding epithets so far published would need correction). The main problem is that the proposal addresses just one special case out of, one fears, a potential multitude of analogous cases in numerous other language traditions of which few will be aware outside the respective countries. An alternative approach would be to promote the correct application of the current provision (already followed by a majority of authors) by adding a corresponding Example editorially (vote "ed.c." if you prefer this option). Also, the proposal could be referred to a new Special Committee on Orthography if it is established (support of this may be indicated by voting "sp.c.").

Prop. E belongs to the context of Art. 60 Prop. Y-FF. Action on it appears to be premature, and referral to a new Special Committee on Orthography is probably preferable.

Prop. F offers an improvement of wording apt to restore the (original? or usual?) sense of the Recommendation.

Recommendation 60E

Prop. A (172 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 943) Delete Rec. 60E.

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A aims at deletion of a Recommendation perceived as "meaningless", mainly because it uses the words "original spelling" in a non-nomenclatural sense. The Rapporteurs have no strong feelings for or against the Recommendation, but suggest that it might be salvaged by improving its wording (substituting "correct" or "usual" for "original") – an option that an "ed.c." vote will be taken to support.

Recommendation 60G

Prop. A (120 – Comm. Orthography in Taxon 47: 924) In Rec. 60G.1(b), delete the words "cannae-folius (leaf of canna),".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A (Special Committee on Orthography: 4 : 1) would delete a phrase that is factually wrong. It may be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Recommendation 60H

Prop. A (173 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 943) In Rec. 60H, insert "to be" before "spelled", replace "host plant" with "associated organism", and make this a provision placed in Art. 60.

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A would expand the coverage of the "Recommendation" to animal hosts, and indeed all organismic substrata. The Committee for Fungi has been asked for its opinion on this aspect. The promotion of Rec. 60H to the status of a rule might appear as a change of substance but is in reality editorial, as the "Recommendation" is already one of the "rules through the back door" for which Art. 60 is notorious (see Art. 60.1: "standardisations imposed by ... Rec. 60H").

Recommendation 60I

Prop. A (174 – Trehane in Taxon 47: 943) In Rec. 60I.1. delete the word "their".

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A suggests an editorial improvement.

Division III

Prop. A (210 – Hawksworth in Taxon 47: 952) Add a clause at the end of Div. III.2:

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A, unanimously supported (5 : 0) by the Special Committee on Harmonisation, would provide for a permanent mechanism to ensure continuing dialogue between the bodies responsible for the various Codes. A Permanent Committee for this purpose would be preferable to a Special Committee established on an ad hoc basis, as it would stand ready to react and comment on relevant issues as and when they arise.

Appendix I   [see End Note]

Prop. A (09 – Craven in Taxon 46: 809) Amend Art. H.9.1 by replacing "Latin" with "English" so that the relevant passage will read: "... whether in English or in any other language".

Prop. B (162 – Greuter in Taxon 47: 940) In Art. H.12.1, replace the words "nothotaxa of specific or infraspecific rank" by "nothospecies", and reword Art. H.11.2 as follows:

"H.11.2. The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific nothotaxon, of which the postulated or known parental taxa are assigned to different species, may be placed subordinate to the name of a nothospecies (but see Rec. H.10B)."

Rapporteurs’ comments. – Prop. A and Prop. B would both be superfluous if Pre. 8 Prop. B to delete the "hybrid appendix" were approved. Prop. A, opposed (0+1 : 3 : 1) by the Special Committee on Harmonisation, also depends on the adoption of Art. 36 Prop. A. Prop. B reflects the fact that, nomenclaturally speaking, there is no subordination of taxa to infraspecific taxa, only to species. It can be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Note:  Due to an oversight, most of the distributed ballot forms lack the two last entries, App. I Prop. A and Prop. B. Please add them by hand.