Synopsis of Proposals on Botanical Nomenclature Sydney 1981 Author(S): Edward G
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Synopsis of Proposals on Botanical Nomenclature Sydney 1981 Author(s): Edward G. Voss and Werner Greuter Reviewed work(s): Source: Taxon, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Feb., 1981), pp. 95-293 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1219397 . Accessed: 15/08/2012 14:42 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon. http://www.jstor.org TAXON 30(1): 95-293. FEBRUARY1981 SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSALS ON BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE SYDNEY 1981 A review of the proposals concerning the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature submitted to the 13th International Botanical Congress at Sydney 1981, by Edward G. Voss (Rapporteur-general) and Werner Greuter (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. (There are no institutional votes allowed in the mail ballot.) Authors of nomen- clature proposals and members of nomenclature committees are also entitled to participate; any such persons not receiving a ballot (enclosed herewith in Taxon for all members of IAPT) may reproduce a member's ballot if available to them or request one (and a Synopsis, if needed) from R. S. Cowan, Department of Botany, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The voting forms (ballots) should be returned to the Vice-rapporteur (W. Greuter) by June 15, 1981 (use the enclosed airmail envelope), so that they may be included in the tabulation which will be made available as a merely advisory document to the members of the Nomen- clature Section. The sessions of the Nomenclature Section, which will take final action on proposals, will be held in the Carslaw Building at the University of Sydney from Monday, 17 August (10:00 a.m.) to Thursday, 20 August 1981. Each registered member of the Nomenclature Section is entitled to one personal vote in the sessions. Personal votes can be neither transferred nor accumulated. A single person never receives more than one personal vote. Official delegates of institutions, or their vice-delegates, may also cast the votes of their respective institutions, but no single person is allowed more than 15 votes (including his personal vote). Institutions will soon be advised of their votes, in accordance with Division III of the Code. Institutional delegates and personal members are invited to collect personally their voting cards at registration for the Nomenclature Section on August 16. Contents N otice .......................................................................... 95 List of Proposals ................................................................ 96 Synopsis of Proposals, with Comments Rapporteurs ................................. 97 Appendix A: Report on the Status of Nomina Conservanda et Rejicienda Proposita ..... 142 Appendix B: Reports of Committees ............................................... 155 Review of Reports ........................................................... 155 Committee for Spermatophyta 23 .............................................. 155 Committee for Pteridophyta ................................................... 161 Subcommittee for Family Names of Pteridophyta ............................... 163 Committee on Romanization of Authors' Names ................................ 168 Committee on Autonyms ..................................................... 183 Committee on Generic Typification ............................................ 200 Appendix C: Other papers with proposals (116-210) to amend the Code ............... 208 FEBRUARY 1981 95 LIST OF PROPOSALS 1 Terrell Taxon 26: 131 2-4 Nicolson Taxon 26: 571 5-6 Laundon Taxon 26: 575 8-9 Lowry & Jones Taxon 26: 568 9 bis Lewin & Fogg Taxon 27: 121 10 Bold, Cronquist, Jeffrey, Johnson, Margulis, Merxmuller, Raven & Takhtajan Taxon 27: 121 - Hughes Taxon 27: 501 11-32 IMC2 (Nomenclature Secretariat of the International Mycological Association) Taxon 28: 425-430 33-35 Darwin Taxon 28: 584 36 Meyen & Traverse Taxon 28: 597 37 Boulter Taxon 28: 598 38 Meikle Taxon 28: 601 39 Darwin Taxon 28: 602 40-41 Leach Taxon 28: 603 42 Isely & Polhill Taxon 29: 105 43-50 Rowley Taxon 29: 341-342 51-59 Silva Taxon 29: 343-346 60-62 McNeill Taxon 29: 475 63-64 Brummitt Taxon 29: 483 65 Brummitt & Hara Taxon 29: 483 66 Malyshev Taxon 29: 515 67 Hara & Eichler Taxon 29: 516 68 Kerguelen Taxon 29: 516 69 Adolphi & Nicolson Taxon 29: 517 70 Filgueiras Taxon 29: 697 71 Marais & Brummitt Taxon 29: 700 72-75 Yeo Taxon 29: 700-701 76-85 Comm. Spermatophyta Taxon 30: 156-161 86 Comm. Romanization Taxon 30: 179 87-110 Comm. Autonyms Taxon 30: 191-198 111-115 Comm. Generic Typification Taxon 30: 205-206 116 Veldkamp Taxon 30: 208 117 Storch Taxon 30: 213 118 Fosberg Taxon 30: 226 119-121 Tjaden Taxon 30: 227 122 Leach Taxon 30: 229 123 Linczevski & Gubanov Taxon 30: 229 124-126 Johnson, Briggs & Blaxell Taxon 30: 230-232 127-137 Demoulin Taxon 30: 238-246 138-145 Eichler Taxon 30: 248-250 146-147 Brummitt & Meikle Taxon 30: 250-251 148-152 Stirton, Field, Brummitt & McNeill Taxon 30: 254-255 153-155 Brummitt Taxon 30: 256-257 156-163 Greuter, McNeill & Nicolson Taxon 30: 258-260 164-188 Yeo Taxon 30: 263-273 189-191 Killick Taxon 30: 273-274 192-199 Parkinson Taxon 30: 275-284 200-202 McNeill Taxon 30: 285-286 203-204 Eichler & Kanis Taxon 30: 287 205 Greuter & McNeill Taxon 30: 288 206-207 Greuter Taxon 30: 289 208-210 Demoulin Taxon 30: 292 96 TAXON VOLUME30 INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE: SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSALS Principle IV Prop. A (96 - Brummitt & Chater, Comm. Autonyms, Taxon 30: 194): Reword as follows: "Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription and rank can, in any one taxonomic situation, bear only one correct name, the earliest that is in accordance with the rules, except in specified cases." Comments Rapporteurs.-Prop. A is a slight rewording of a proposal made at Leningrad and there overwhelmingly defeated along with other suggested amendments in the Principles. The point was then raised that if changes are made in Art. 19, from which this proposal is derived, the Editorial Committee can adjust the wording if the existing "except in specified cases" is not adequate. The proposal can in any event be considered at Sydney after decisions are made on the basic autonym proposals. Article 3 Prop. A (10 -Bold et al., Taxon 27: 121): It is proposed that the term 'divisio' be replaced by the term 'phylum' throughout the ICBN. This would necessitate the following changes: In Article 3, substitute the word 'phylum' for 'division'; in Article 4, substitute the word 'phylum' for 'division,' and 'subphylum' for 'subdivision.' The Editorial Committee is instructed to make comparable substitutions of 'phylum' and 'subphylum' for 'division' and 'subdivision' elsewhere in the Code, as for example in Recommendation 16A. Add a new Note 1 to Article 3: 'Names originally published as divisions or subdivisions should be treated as if they had been published as phyla or subphyla, respectively.' Prop. B (11 - IMC2, Taxon 28: 425): Add after existing Note 1: "In fungi, the anatomical nomenclatural system for asexual forms (anamorphs) provides for form-taxa at any level (see Art. 59)." Prop. C (36 - Meyen & Traverse, Taxon 28: 597): Revise to read: "The principal ranks .... Thus, each species belongs (is to be assigned) to a genus, each genus to a family, except that for some fossil plants, genera may be unassignable to higher taxa. Note 1. The names of species, and consequently of many higher taxa, of fossil plants are often based on fragmentary, dispersed specimens. When an organic connection between parts ascribed to different taxa is shown to exist, the names associated with the dispersed parts may still continue to be used for those parts. "(Delete the rest of Article 3, with instructions to the Editorial Committee to seek suitable examples.)" Prop. D (37 -Boulter, Taxon 28: 598): Delete Art. 3.2 and substitute: "Since the names of taxa of fossil plants are usually based on fragmentary specimens, fossil- genera are distinguished as taxa which may be given names according to this Code. If they are not assignable to a family they may be referable to a taxon of higher rank." Comments Rapporteurs.-Prop. A is the same proposal, designed to bring botanical termi- nology into accord with zoological usage, that was thoroughly considered at Leningrad and defeated on a card vote which was closer (199 no, 172 yes) than the preliminary mail vote (182 no, 50 yes). The Bacteriological Code avoids the issue by recognizing no rank between class and kingdom (it does not use either "phylum" or "division"). One beneficial effect of accepting the proposal would be to remove ambiguity in usage of the terms "subdivision of a genus" and "subdivisional epithet" already in the Code. Prop. B would be a new Note. It is dependent upon the rewriting of Art. 59, and should FEBRUARY 1981 97 likewise be considered by the Committee for Fungi and Lichens. It might be advisable to transfer the entire Art. 3.2 to Art. 59, replacing it with a cross reference. Props. C & D are to be referred to the Committee for Fossil Plants. The first sentence of Prop. C is a welcome improvement in wording but the "Note" is more than a Note. It should be recognized that the only reason why Art. 3.2 is necessary is to authorize the exception stated in Art. 3.1, i.e. that unlike non-fossil taxa, fossil genera need not be assignable to a family or higher taxon for the name to be acceptable.