sign in sign up
<<
Home , Binomial nomenclature, Botanical name, Correct name, Taxonomic rank

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee

Module 15: Botanical : Concept, history of

(local and scientific) and its advantages, formation of code.

Content writer: Dr.AvishekBhattacharjee, Central National , Botanical Survey of India,

P.O. – B. Garden, Howrah – 711 103.

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee

Botanical Nomenclature:Concept –

A is a handle by which a mental image is passed. are just labels we use to ensure we are understood when we communicate. Nomenclature is a mechanism for unambiguous communication about the elements of . Botanical Nomenclature, i.e. naming of is that part of systematics dealing with application of scientific names to plants according to some set rules. It is related to, but distinct from taxonomy. A is a unique to which information of a can be attached, thus enabling the movement of data across languages, scientific disciplines, and electronic retrieval systems. A plant’s name permits ready summarization of information content of the taxon in a nested framework. A systemofnamingplantsforscientificcommunicationmustbe international inscope,andmustprovideconsistencyintheapplicationof names.Itmustalsobeacceptedbymost,ifnotall,membersofthe scientific community. These criteria led, almost inevitably, to International Botanical Congresses (IBCs) being the venue at which agreement on a system of scientific nomenclature for plants was sought.

The IBCs led to publication of different ‘Codes’ which embodied the rules and regulations of botanical nomenclature and the decisions taken during these Congresses.

Advantages ofBotanical Nomenclature:

Though a may be much easier to remember, there are several good reasons to use botanical names for plant identification. Common names are not unique to a specific plant. Different of plants (might not even be related) may have the same common name or vice-versa. Gardeners of different countries have different set of common names for the plants. Due to the difference in language and culture, it could be very difficult for an Indian gardener to share her experience of some particular species with a gardener in China. Further, the plants which are less

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee common,do not have any common name. Therefore, every plant must have only one correct botanical name, the earliest that is in accordance with the rules(except in specified cases). The purpose of giving a botanical name to a taxonomic group is not to indicate its characters or history, but to supply a means of referring to it and to indicate its .For this purpose there is need a precise and simple system of nomenclature that is used in all countries, dealing on the one hand with the terms that denote the ranks of taxonomic groups or units, and on the other hand with the scientific names that are applied to the individual taxonomic groups. The Botanical Nomenclature aims at the provision of a stable method of naming taxonomic groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names that may cause error or ambiguity or throw science into confusion. Next in importance is the avoidance of the useless creation of names. Other considerations, such as absolute grammatical correctness, regularity or euphony of names, more or less prevailing custom, regard for persons, etc., notwithstanding their undeniable importance, are relatively accessory.

History of botanical nomenclature and formation of Code:

The early Egyptians and Greeks named many food plants and others with medicinal properties. One of the most important early works was by the Greek, , who recognized the difference between what we now call and . There was, then, not a lot of botanical progress until about the

16thcentury, when a number of useful works were printed, mainly 'herbals', which were among the first literature produced in Ancient Egypt, China, India, and as the medical wisdom of the day accumulated by herbalists, apothecaries and physicians.For several centuries the plant-names appeared as polynomial – long descriptive phases, often difficult to remember. For example, the humble was given the long polynomial Solanumcauleinermiherbaceofoliispinnatisincisis which means the 'Solanum

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee with the smooth stem which is herbaceous and has incised pinnate '. In 1620,

Swiss Caspar Bauhin introduced the concept of under which the name of a species consists of two parts – the first is the name of the , i.e. generic name and the second is the specific epithet. Bauhin, however, did not use binomial nomenclature for all the species and it was Linnaeus who firmly established this system of naming in his ‘’(Linnaeus, 1753). The early rules of nomenclature were set forth By Linnaeus in his ‘Criticabotanica’ (1737) and further amplified in

‘Philosohiabotanica’ (1751). Even after Linnaeus’s Species Plantarum’ some significant works in were published where the plants were named but without following binomial nomenclature. Van Rheede, the Dutch Governor of Cochin (Kerala, India), a soldier who had no training in botany, became fascinated by the of Malabar, compiled and published a unique 12-volume work -‘HortusMalabaricus’ between 1678 and 1693 where he provided brief descriptions of plants, their illustrations, their smell, taste and practical values under their Malayalam names.AugustinPyramus de Candolle in his ‘Théorieélémentaire de la botanique’ (Candolle, 1813)introduced a new classification system and the word ‘taxonomy’. He gavea nice discussion of nomenclature of what might be termed good practices with examplesand favored priority except in the few cases. Steudel in his ‘Nomenclatorbotanicus’ (1821) provided

Latin names for all flowering plants known to him together with their synonyms. But theschisms began with the 1843 British Association for the Advancement of Science approval of Zoological rules and became manifest with the1867 Paris Congress approval of Alphonse de Candolle's botanical "laws".On 1August1867 Alphonse de

Candolle finished the cornerstone work of botanicalnomenclature for the meeting of the International Botanical Congress of 16 August 1867 in Paris. This 60-page paper (‘Lois de la nomenclature botanique’) has 11 pages ofintroduction, 19 pages of

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee

"laws" in 68 articles, and 28 pages of commentary. Year of publication (1753) of

Linnaeus’s ‘Species Plantarum’was made the starting point for plant nomenclature and the rule of priority was made fundamental. The modern successor to Candolle’s ‘Lois’ is the ‘International Code of Nomenclature for , fungi, and plants’ (ICN), the most recent published editionof which appeared in 2012 and was based on the decisions taken at the XVIII International Botanical Congress held in Melbourne in 2011.It is worth noting that the 1867-Rules or Candolle’s laws (Candolle, 1867) was not enforced like the current Code(s). It was "adopted by the assembly as the best guide to followfor botanical nomenclature".

Since 1867, there have been three main phases in the history of the rules governing the nomenclature of plants.

1) 1867-1905: during this time it became clear that, whereas many of the broad principles of Candolle’s ‘Lois’(e.g. a single and priority of publication in choice between names) were generally accepted, their application in practice was unclear leading to major differences of interpretation and hence disagreement;

2) 1905-1947: the consequent establishment of more detailed ‘International Rules of

Botanical Nomenclature’, the ‘American Code’ schism, and its resolution;

3) 1947-present: successive editions (12 to date) of the Code, revised to a relatively minor degree at each International Botanical Congress.

1867-1905: Candolle’s Lois to International Rules –

The application, and some of the principles of the Lois formulated by Alphonse de

Candolle in 1867 and endorsed as “le meilleur guide a suivre pour la nomenclature botanique” (the best guide to follow for botanical nomenclature), proved controversial, leading both to divergent practice and to the desire for more definitive rules.

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee

For example, the Lois said that botanical nomenclature started with Linnaeus, it did not specify a particular date - not a problem for species names, but Linnaeus had been publishing generic names since 1737, and often changed his view between 1737 and

1753.

The contemporary rise of "Darwinism" added to the divisiveness. By the late 1800s, various botanical centres had or were evolving modified or different rules/Codes from the Candolle’s laws. The first mention of what will be known as the "" was by Henry Trimen in 1877 which was against the strict application of the . According to the Kew Rule: "Our practice is to take the name under which any given plant is first placed in its true genus as the name to be kept up, even though the author of it may have ignored the proper rule of retaining the [epithet], when transferring it from its old genus to the new."

The Kew Rule was opposed by Alphonse de Candolle, but supporters perceived it asapplying the Principle of Priority by maintaining the oldest applicable (binomial) name. In the meantime a botanical club (with N.L. Britton) held a meeting within the

American Association for the Advancement of Science (A.A.A.S.) in Rochester, New York, in August 1892. Their proceedings included the ‘Rochester Resolutions’(later called the

Rochester Code), which introduced ‘ concept’ and strict application of rules of priority even if the name was a tautonym. However, the Americans were divided and criticisms were beingpublished pointing out instability (actuallyinconsistencies) of practitioners of the Rochester resolutions.

First International Botanical Congress (1900) and‘International Rules of Botanical

Nomenclature’(1906) –

This was discussed at the first International Botanical Congress in Paris in 1900 and it was agreed that a special session on Nomenclature be held at the second IBC in

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee

Vienna in 1905. This culminated in the acceptance by the Congress of the ‘International

Rules of Botanical Nomenclature’, published in 1906.

In early 1903 the Botanical Club of the American Association for the Advancementof

Science appointed a Nomenclature Commission. They produced a ‘Code of Botanical

Nomenclature’ (1904) with four principles, 19 canons, and separate sections on orthography and citations. This came with a simple proposal to the Vienna Congress,

"the laws of 1867 be amended by abandonment of all its articles and substitution of the appended Code". Vienna Congress declined to accept detailed proposals of the U.S. delegation led by N.L. Britton, involving the introduction of the type method (which was also proposed earlier in Rochester Resolutions in 1892) for determining the application of names (as opposed to a circumscriptional method), and so also led to a separate

Brittonian Code (the ‘American Code’ of 1907). The tautonym was not accepted in 1906

Vienna Code. However, the Vienna Congress was the first meeting devoted solely to the vexing "problem of nomenclature." It eliminated almost all except theBrittonian(American) schism. Disadvantageous changes in nomenclature were required by strict application of the rules of priority, resulting in the substitution of new and unfamiliar names for names which had been in wide use for many years, and to curb this practice the Vienna Congress (1905) provided for a list of generic names (‘nominaconservanda’) which must be retained in all cases. These names are by preference those which came into general use in the fifty years following their publication, or which were used in monographs and important floristic works up to the year 1890. A list of such names was adopted by the

Vienna Congress and has been steadily augmented by succeeding Congresses.

1905-1947: International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature –

A second edition of the ‘International Rules’ was published in 1912 following the

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee

Brussels Congress of 1910, but included little change. After this Congress a nomenclatural "dark age" descended when the 1915 London Congress was cancelled because of a subsequent engagement, World War I. The next congress in Ithaca

(1926) declared itself incompetent due to insufficient international representation.

The 1930 Cambridge Congress revised the 1912 ‘Brussels Code’ but, largely because of the death of Briquet in 1931, its Code appeared only a few months before the

1935 Amsterdam Congress that amended it. This third edition of the Code embodied a major development, the adoption of the type method that was characteristic of the

‘American Code’. This was accepted by the Cambridge Congress of 1930 and the requirement for Latin descriptions of new taxa, absent from the American Code, was deferred to 1935 (Amsterdam Congress) and the schism was healed.

World War II (1939—45) interrupted nomenclatural activity and it was not until 1947 that the unofficial ‘Brittonia Rules’ were published, incorporating the changes accepted at the Amsterdam Congress of 1935. By this time Lanjouw, who was to become

Rapporteur-general, was setting up preliminary meetings of nomenclaturalists to prepare for the first post-war Congress to be held in Stockholm in 1950.

1947-present: successive editions of the International Code of [Botanical]

Nomenclature –

The VII International Botanical Congress held in Stockholm in 1950 led to the first

‘International Code of Botanical Nomenclature’ and to the founding of the ‘International

Association for (IAPT)’, its journal, ‘Taxon’, in which all Code amendment proposals now appear, and its serial publication, ‘Regnum Vegetabile’, in which all subsequent Codes appear at the remorseless six-year pace of the congresses. Successive editions of the Code were published following the Congresses held in Paris (1954), Montreal (1959), Edinburgh (1964), Seattle (1969), Leningrad

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee

(1975), Sydney (1981), Berlin (1987), Tokyo (1993), St Louis (1999), Vienna (2005) and Melbourne (2011). Although important decisions were taken at several of these

Congresses, most notably the great extension in the provisions for the conservation and rejection of names, starting in Sydney in 1981 and culminating in Tokyo in 1993, and the significant recent changes adopted in Melbourne (2011), involving electronic publication, relaxation of the Latin requirement, and fundamental changes for fungal and nomenclature, particularly the former, no changes in the basis of the rules have occurred comparable to the introduction of the type method in the ‘Cambridge

Rules’ of 1935. What successive editions of the Code have achieved is much greater precision, particularly in the requirements for valid publication of names.

Since the VII International Botanical Congress in Stockholm in 1950, successive editions of the Code have been published as the ‘International Code of Botanical Nomenclature’, commonly abbreviated as ‘ICBN’. In Melbourne, reflecting the view, particularly amongst mycologists, that the word “Botanical” was misleading and could imply that the

Code covered only green plants and excluded fungi and diverse algal lineages, it was agreed that the name be changed to ‘International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants’ or ‘ICN’ from the Melbourne Code (2012). The XIX International Botanical

Congress will be held in Shenzhen, China in 2017.

A list of the International Botanical Congresses and International Rules/ Codes:

IBC Year City Country International Rules/ Codes I 1900 Paris France -

II 1905 Vienna Austria 1stInternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature (1906) III 1910 Brussels Belgium 2ndInternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature(1912)

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee

IV 1926 Ithaca United States -

V 1930 Cambridge United 3rdInternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature(1935) VI 1935 Amsterdam Netherlands -

VII 1950 Stockholm Sweden 1stInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature(ICBN, VIII 1954 Paris France 2195ndInternational2) Code of Botanical Nomenclature(ICBN,1956 IX 1959 Montreal Canada 3) rdInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature(ICBN, X 1964 Edinburgh United Kingdom 4196thInternational1) Code of Botanical Nomenclature(ICBN,1966 XI 1969 Seattle United States 5) thInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature(ICBN,1972 XII 1975 Leningrad Soviet Union 6) thInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature(ICBN, XIII 1981 Sydney Australia 7197thInternational8) Code of Botanical Nomenclature(ICBN, XIV 1987 Berlin Germany 81th98International3) Code of Botanical Nomenclature(ICBN, XV 1993 Tokyo Japan 91988)thInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature(ICBN, XVI 1999 St. Louis United States 101994)thInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature(ICBN, XVII 2005 Vienna Austria 112000)thInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature(ICBN, XVIII 2011 Melbourne Australia 122006)thInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature(ICN, 2012)

Clearing some confusion:

In many literature the 1867 Paris Congress has been treated as 1stInternational

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee

Botanical Congress and 1867 ‘Code’ (Candolle's 'laws') as the 1stCode, whereas in some others the 1900 Paris Congress is treated as 1st IBC and 1906 Vienna 'Code' (may be called as 'Rules' instead of 'Code') is treated as1st‘Code'. However, the 1867 Paris

Congress is not accepted as the 1stIBC and 1867 ‘Code’as 1stInternational Rules/Code(as it was not 'International' in true senseand it was not enforced like the current Codes) by the Code experts. The 1900 Paris Congress is actually the 1st IBC and only after the

1905 Vienna Congress (2nd IBC) the 1st‘International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature

(1906)’ was published. The 1st‘International Code of Botanical Nomenclature(1952)’ is the outcome of the 7thIBC held at Stockholm (1950) which also led to the founding of the

‘International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT)’.

Basic structureof the Melbourne Code, 2012 (latest Code):

It was agreed in Melbourne Congress (2011) that the Appendices (other than App. I on the nomenclature of hybrids) need no longer be published along with the main text, and indeed may be published only electronically. The main volume of the

MelbourneCodecomprises only the main text of the Code, i.e. the Preamble, I –

Principles (6 Principles), Division II - Rules and Recommendations (Article 1 – 62),

Division III - Provisions for the Governance of the Code, Appendix I - Names of Hybrids

(H.1 – H.12), the Glossary, the Index of scientific names, and the Subject index. A separate volume comprising Appendices II–VIII will be published later, both as a printed volume and electronically. Appendices II–VI will cover conserved and rejected names and suppressed works as in the Vienna Code, but App. VII and VIII are new and reflect a decision of the Melbourne Congress to include in Appendices the binding decisions under Art. 38.4 of this Code on whether or not to treat a name as validly published when it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement satisfies the requirement

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee for a “description or diagnosis” and those under Art. 53.5 on whether or not to treat names as homonyms when it is doubtful whether they or their epithets are sufficiently alike to be confused.

Principles of the Code:

Principle I

The nomenclature of algae, fungi, and plants is independent of zoological and bacteriological nomenclature. This Code applies equally to names of taxonomic groups treated as algae, fungi, or plants, whether or not these groups were originally so treated.

Principle II

The application of names of taxonomic groups is determined by means of nomenclatural types.

Principle III

The nomenclature of a taxonomic group is based upon priority of publication.

Principle IV

Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name, the earliest that is in accordance with the rules, except in specified cases.

Principle V

Scientific names of taxonomic groups are treated as Latin regardless of their derivation.

Principle VI

The rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited.

Major changes in Melbourne Code (McNeill et al., 2012):

Several changes have been made in the Melbourne Code (2012) whichbegin on the cover: the title was broadened to make explicit that the Code applies not only to plants,

Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee but also to algae and fungi. The new title is the ‘International Code of Nomenclature of algae, fungi, and plants’. In addition to the change in the title of the Code and the separation of the Appendices (already mentioned earlier), there were five other major changes to the rules of nomenclature adopted in Melbourne: the acceptance of certain forms of electronic publication; the option of using English (w.e.f. 01.01.2012) as an alternative to Latin for the descriptions or diagnoses of new taxa of non-fossil organisms; the requirement for registration as a prerequisite for valid publication of new names of fungi; the abolition of the provision for separate names for fungi with a pleomorphic history; and the abandonment of the morphotaxon concept in the nomenclature of .