The International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants Is Amended Every Six Years at the Nomenclature Section of an International Botanical Congress
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
9 December 2015 Dear Director/Keeper of the Herbarium: The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants is amended every six years at the Nomenclature Section of an International Botanical Congress. The last Section was held in Melbourne, Australia, in 2011. At that Section a Special Committee on Institutional Votes was established (see attached article from Taxon 62(3): 648-649. 2013, which contains a brief explanation of Institutional Votes). Sebsebe Demissew (ETH) agreed to serve as Chairman and Vicki Funk (US) as Secretary of the Committee. The topic of Institutional Votes was discussed in depth at the 2011 Section in Melbourne and since then at several other international meetings (e.g., GPI). It seems that in the past the number of Institutional Votes was based mainly on the size of a collection although there was always an opportunity to ask for further consideration and adjustments were made upon such requests. The Special Committee on Institutional Votes has recommended to the Bureau of Nomenclature and the General Committee that Institutional Votes be allocated based on both the size of the collection and activity of the staff (e.g. numbers of practising taxonomists and taxonomic publications). The goal is to determine how many individuals are actively using nomenclature and are therefore familiar with the Code. We do not see this as a way to reduce votes (unless an herbarium is closed or nearly inaccessible) because some large herbaria with a small staff still actively host numerous visitors and train large numbers of students, etc. But it is an opportunity to increase the number of votes for active herbaria with smaller collections. The XIX International Botanical Congress (IBC) will take place in Shenzhen, China, 23-29 July, 2017. Just prior to the start of the IBC, from 17-21 July, the Nomenclature Section will meet as usual to consider amendments to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code). The list of Institutional Votes allocated will be drawn up by the Special Committee together with the Bureau of Nomenclature. The list must then be approved by the General Committee in advance of the meeting of the Nomenclature Section. It is, therefore, time to move forward on this issue. Attached you will find four things: 1. A short form about the current size and activity level at your herbarium and a statement requesting that your herbarium be assigned votes or that your vote number be altered. This form should be returned to the Secretary of the Special Committee on Institutional Votes (see email below). If you are satisfied with the number of votes you are assigned you do not have to do anything but if you have any questions you can notify the Chairman or Secretary of the Committee (see emails below). 2. The Taxon article about Institutional Voting. Please read this if you are unfamiliar with how the Nomenclature Section works. 3. An Excel spread sheet that lists the institutions that received a vote at the 2011 Melbourne Nomenclature Section. This list reflects those institutions that have attended a Nomenclature Section in the past - you have to attend a Section to cast Institutional Votes or you have to officially transfer your vote(s) to someone who is attending the Section. Please check the number of votes assigned to your institution. 4. An Index Herbariorum (IH) form (short version). Please Register if your herbarium is not listed in IH; if you are already registered please update the information about your herbarium (these should be sent to NY, the address is on the form). If your institution is already a member, please NOTE that you do not have to fill out the entire form, only the parts that you wish to update. It is recommended that, if possible, you go to the IH website opening page and use the link to the forms along with instructions on how to register or update your entry. http://sciweb.nybg.org/science2/IndexHerbariorum.asp We request that you return the short form (#1) to the Secretary of the Committee no later than 1 February 2016. Sincerely, Prof. Sebsebe Demissew (ETH) Chairman of the Special Committee on Institutional Votes National Herbarium, Department of Plant Biology and Biodiversity Management Addis Ababa University P.O. Box 3434 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia [email protected]; [email protected] Dr. Vicki Funk (US) Secretary of the Special Committee on Institutional Votes US National Herbarium, Botany Department Smithsonian Institution, MRC 166 P.O. Box 37012 Washington D.C., USA 20013-7012 [email protected] TO: The Special Committee on Institutional Votes FROM (IH Herbarium Abbreviation): _______ DATE: Please consider our request to increase/decrease (circle one) the number of Institutional Votes we are allocated. Votes allocated to our herbarium: current number of votes: ____; requested number of votes: ____. The current estimated number of specimens housed in our herbarium: ____________. The current number of taxonomists employed (or retired and continuing to work) in our herbarium: _______. The estimated number of postdoctoral fellows, students, para-taxonomists, etc. trained at our herbarium during the last 12-24 months: _____. The approximate number of taxonomic publications (papers, books, etc.) authored or co- authored by staff at our herbarium in 2013: _____ and 2014: _____. The estimated number of scientific visitors hosted by our herbarium during 2013: _____ and 2014: _____. Any additional information you think might be useful: Name and address of person filling out this form (please print) Return via email to [email protected] or by fax +1-202-786-2563 TAXON 62 (3) • June 2013: 647–649 Plant Systematics World PLANT SYSTEMATICS WORLD Edited by Vicki A. Funk BARCODING P.A.T.H.S.: A NEW DATABASE true for cryptic taxa or those that are very small in size (Gemeinhol- FOR PLANT & ALGAL TYPE & HISTORICAL zer & al., 2006; Komárek, 2010; Sciuto & al., 2012; Wolf & al., 2012). SPECIMENS Our project has just begun and our group is willing to establish collaborations with other research groups, museums, and botanical Molecular techniques have become an integral part of system- gardens involved in similar DNA barcoding studies. Such collab- atic studies. In particular, DNA barcoding is increasingly used as orations would increase the molecular data regarding type and a way to correctly identify taxa in a rapid, repeatable, and reliable historical specimens and make them accessible to everyone. In the manner. For years our research group has been involved in several P.A.T.H.S. database each sample that represents the type strain of a projects related to the identification of plant organisms using the newly described species (supported by publication on ISI journals) DNA barcoding. The necessity of these studies arose from both can be included. In addition, it is possible for collaborators to add purely systematic questions and at the request of private and public unpublished sequences so they are available for comparison with institutions. BLAST, but not visible or downloadable by other users, this would One of the major problems we encountered was the lack of facilitate the rapid sharing of data. However, the sequences have to availability of molecular data from types and historical specimens. be submitted to one of the public databases, like GenBank. Type specimens are fundamental for systematic work, especially The DNA barcoding method, proposed by Hebert & al. (2003), in the comparison of results from systematic and nomenclature relies on the use of standardized DNA regions that represent tags, studies, as stated by the International Code of Nomenclature for or barcodes, to unambiguously and rapidly identify species. Ideally, algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code) (McNeill & al. 2012), a barcode marker should have sufficient sequence variation among and specimens from historical collections are useful for understand- species and low intra-specific variation. In addition its amplifica- ing the distribution of taxa in space and time (e.g., to understand tion and sequencing should be as straightforward as possible. This if an allochthonous species represents a recent introduction or was means a single copy locus, obtained with a unique primer pair and already present in a given area, but had been misidentified (Cecere standard PCR amplification and sequencing protocols (Kress & & al., 2011; Wolf & al., 2012). The DNA barcoding method has al- Erickson, 2007; Valentini & al., 2008). For animals the gene region lowed us to study historical specimens of great scientific value, proposed as barcode marker is the gene cox1, while for plant because only a small amount of starting material is required, organisms the overall lower levels of mutation rates neces- thus preserving these irreplaceable sources of information. sitates a multi-locus barcode to maximally discriminate Our group has begun making the sequences of type among species. For cyanobacteria DNA barcoding is just and historical material produced during our research avail- beginning. Based on our own experience and on the liter- able to everyone on a public database, called “Barcoding ature, in the Barcoding P.A.T.H.S. project we use varying P.A.T.H.S.” (Plant & Algal Type & Historical Specimens; barcode markers (Famá & al., 2002; Kress & al., 2005; Saunders, www.barcoding-paths.it). It will be a library of reference se- 2005; Skage & al., 2005; Rubinoff & al., 2006; Hall & al., 2010; quences, easy to update, and against which putative new species or Händeler & al.; 2010; Hamsher & al., 2011). other plant material can be compared. As the acronym P.A.T.H.S The age of herbarium material from which DNA regions have suggests, the biological material that is reported in the project com- been successfully amplified varies according to different studies, as prises water and land plants and algae, interpreted sensu lato to well as the length of the amplified fragments that can be obtained.