Synopsis of Proposals on Botanical Nomenclature Leningrad 1975 Author(S): Frans A

Synopsis of Proposals on Botanical Nomenclature Leningrad 1975 Author(s): Frans A. Stafleu and Edward G. Voss Source: Taxon, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Feb., 1975), pp. 201-251 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1219048 . Accessed: 13/04/2014 09:42

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

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TAXON 24(I): 201-254. FEBRUARY 1795

SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSALS

SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSALS ON BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE LENINGRAD 1975 A review of the proposals concerning the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature submitted to the 12th International Botanical Congress at Lening- rad 1975 by Frans A. Stafleu (Rapporteur-general) and Edward G. Voss (Vice- rapporteur).

Contents

List of proposals ...... 201 Synopsis of proposals ...... 203 Appendix A: Report on the status of nomina conservanda proposita . 238 Committees Appendix B: Reports of ...... 244 Review of reports ...... 244 G. General Committee (E. Voss) ...... 244 Committee for Spermatophyta XVIII (R. McVaugh) . 244 Committee for Bryophyta (P. A. Florschiitz) ...... 248 Subcommittee for Family names (G. Buchheim) 249 Appendix C: Proposal received on time, here first published, 152, S. V. Meyen, Palaeobotanical Taxonomy and Nomenclature...... 251I

List of proposals - Potonie 33 bis Holttum Taxon 20: 382 Taxon 23: 648 - Paclt 34 bis-36 bis Moore Taxon 20: 822 Taxon 23: 65I 10-13 McGillivray 37 Moore Taxon 21: 718 Taxon 23: 65I 14-18 Rauschert 38 Baum Taxon 21: 719-720 Taxon 23: 653 19 Jansonius 39-42 Petersen Taxon 22: 259 Taxon 23: 657 20 Compare 43 Jansonius Taxon 22: 703 Taxon 23: 658 21-22 Nicolson & Brooks 44 Crundwell Taxon 23: 174-175 Taxon 23: 661 23-29 Special Committee 45 Compare (names above rank of family) Taxon 23: 663 Taxon 23: 422 46-48 Greuter 30-32 Nicolson Taxon 23: 665 Taxon 23: 560-56i 49-53 Rauschert 33-35 Hawksworth & Sutton Taxon 23: 669-673 Taxon 23: 565-568 54-55 Komrek 36 Taxon 23 676-677 Weresub, Malloch, & Pirozynski 56-76 Yeo & Comm. Hybrids Taxon 23: 577 Taxon 23: 677-684

FEBRUARY 1975 201

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 77a-77c Special Committee 121-126 Greuter (Arts. 69, 70, & 71) Taxon 23: 869-871 Taxon 23: 824-828 127-142 Viczy 77-96 Raven et al. Taxon 23: 872-876 Taxon 23: 828-832 143 Holm 96a Thomas Taxon 23: 876 Taxon 23: 833 144 Tjaden 97-100 Demoulin Taxon 23: 877 Taxon 23: 842 145 Christensen 101-102 Nicolson Taxon 23: 877 Taxon 23: 85o-85i 146 Little 103-106 Brummitt & Chater Taxon 23: 878 Taxon 23: 856-858 147 Goloskokov 107-109 Brummitt, Chater, & Greuter Taxon 23: 878 Taxon 23: 86o-86i 148 Spongberg & Shaw 110o-I2 Brummitt & Meikle Taxon 23: 878 Taxon 23: 864-865 149 Silva 113-117 Brummitt Taxon 23: 878-879 Taxon 23: 865-867 150 Wood & Spongberg 118 Jansonius Taxon 23: 879 Taxon 23: 868 151 Lebeau 119-120 Laundon Taxon 23: 880 Taxon 23: 869 152 Meyen Taxon 24: 259

NOMENCLATURE SESSIONS, LENINGRAD 1975

XII. International Botanical Congress

Registration: 28 June 1975, 14.00 - 23.00 hrs. 29 June 1975, o.oo - 23.00 hrs. 30 June 1975, 9.00 - i6.oo hrs.

Sessions : 30 June 1975, 0o.oo - i8.oo hrs. I July 1975, 1o.oo - i8.oo hrs. 2 July 1975, 10.00 - 17.oo hrs. 3 July 1975, 10.00 - 12.00 hrs.

Location: House of the Scientists, Palace Embankment, Leningrad.

202 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE: PROPOSALS

Principle II

Prop. A (128 - Viczy, Taxon 23: 872) - Change to read: "The application of names of individual taxonomic groups is determined by means of nomenclatural types, except in specified cases."

Comments Rapporteurs: It is true that Art. 16 (even if Prop. A for amending it is accepted) provides for exceptions to the principle of typification, in accord with Art. 7, which restricts typification to names of taxa of the rank of family and below. The proposed slight revision in wording, to parallel that of Princ. IV, could be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Principle III

Prop. A (128a - Vaiczy, Taxon 23: 872) - Change to read: "The nomenclature of an individual taxonomic group is based upon priority of publication, except in specified cases."

Comments Rapporteurs: While there are indeed various limitations on the application of priority, Principle II only states that nomenclature "is based upon" priority - which is true. A need to recognize exceptions is not as obvious here as for the more absolute statements of Principles II and IV.

Principle IV

Prop. A (io6 - Brummitt & Chater, Taxon 23: 858) - Reword the Principle 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: This is closely related to Art. I9, Prop. F (q. v.), and is to be considered if that proposal is accepted.

New Principle VII

Prop. A (33 bis - Holttum, Taxon 23: 648) - Add the following new Principle, with a brief explanatory note: "The Code of Nomenclature is applicable only to taxonomic situations, which are the result of observation of plants followed by taxonomic judgement. No one ought to apply the Code without making independent observation and judgement. "A name given under this Code has only as much value as the taxonomic understanding of the person who gives it. Early investigators often made erroneous or uncritical observations, and even more often failed to mention important structures; their judgements were sometimes unsatisfactory because of these limitations. When the Code is applied to past judgements, without critical examination of the plants in question, the result can therefore be unnecessary further confusion." Comments Rapporteurs: While the advice is sound (see also paragraph 8 of the Preamble), the matter is hardly a Principle nor is it capable of enforcement: Rules would have to be proposed to render operable any declaration that the Code "is applicable only to taxonomic situations...," an implication that one could ignore work done when not based on "taxonomic judgement."

Article 3 - - Prop. A (34 bis Moore, Taxon 23: 65i) Add to the first sentence the ranks of kingdom (regnum) and dominion (dominium) and add the following new Note:

FEBRUARY1975 203

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "Note 2. There are three dominions: Dominium Virus, Dominium Prokaryota, and Dominium Eukaryota." - Prop. B (93 Raven, Merxmiiller, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 832)- Substitute "phylum (phylum)" for "division (divisio)." Add a new Note 2: "The word division (divisio) in earlier works should be interpreted automatically as meaning phylum (phylum)."

Prop. C (118 - Jansonius, Taxon 23: 868) - Amend Note i to read: "Note i. Since the names of species, and consequently of many higher taxa, of fossil plants are usually based on fragmentary specimens, and since the connection between these specimens can only rarely be proved, artificial genera are distinguished as taxa within which species may be recognised and given names according to this Code. "If such artificial genera can be or are assigned to a family, they are called organ- genera (organo-genus). As long as such genera cannot be assigned to a family but are assignable to a taxon of higher rank, they are called form-genera (forma-genus)."

Comments Rapporteurs

Prop. A. By adding the high rank of "dominion," this proposal provides a flexibility needed by those who wish to adopt certain modern systems of classification of organisms in which such distinctions as those between the Prokaryota and Eukaryota are recognized at a higher taxonomic level than the traditional kingdoms. The use of a supplementary term such as "dominion" is, however, already authorized under Art. 4, and it may be premature formally to introduce a new term not yet in general use. Note 2, which is in the form of a taxonomic judgement, is appropriate only as an example. (The new Bacteriological Code cites "Procaryotae" as an example of a King- dom.) Prop. B. The alteration is designed to bring botanical terminology for the ranks of taxa into accord with zoological usage. The proposal was last considered at the Edinburgh Congress (1964) when it was automatically rejected on a decisive mail vote (20 yet, 148 no). Prop. C. The rewording appears to make clear that both organ-genera and form-genera are artificial and is designed to remove any ambiguity about generic typification being in all instances based on species (as stated in Art. 7, Note 2). The proposal is to be referred to the Committee for Fossil Plants for an opinion.

Article 4 - - Prop. A (35 bis Moore, Taxon 23: 65) Amend the first paragraph to read as follows: "If a greater number of ranks of taxa is required, the terms for these are made either by adding the prefixes super (super-) or sub (sub-) to the terms denoting the ranks or by the introduction of supplementary terms. A plant or fungus may be assigned to taxa of the following super or subordinate ranks of the eukaryote dominion (Dominium Eukaryota): Regnum Vegetabile, Subregnum, Superdivisio, Divisio, Subdivisio, Super- classis, Classis, Subclassis, Superordo, Ordo, Subordo, Superfamilia, Familia, Subfamilia, Supertribus, Tribus, Subtribus, Supergenus, Genus, Subgenus, Supersectio, Sectio, Sub- sectio, Superseries, Series, Subseries, Superspecies, Species, Subspecies, Supervarietas, Varietas, Subvarietas, Superforma, Forma, Subforma." Prop. B (77 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 830) - Seplace the second sentence as follows: "A plant may be assigned to taxa of the following subordinate ranks: Divisio, Subdivisio, Classis, Subclassis, Ordo, Subordo, Familia, Subfamilia, Tribus, Subtribus, Genus, Subgenus, Sectio, Subsectio, Series, Subseries, Species, Subspecies (Varietas), Forma." Prop. C (78 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 830) - Delete the second paragraph.

Prop. D (94 - Raven, Merxmiiller, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 832) - Substitute "Phylum" for "Divisio."

204 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A. The Rapporteurs do not see the necessity for such a detailed breakdown of ranks or for prescribing use of the prefix "super-," since Art. 4 already expressly permits the use of supplementary ranks [including "super-"], provided that confusion or error is not thereby introduced." To introduce a rank of "superspecies," for instance, might lead to confusion without associated rules for typification, etc.

Prop. B, compared to Prop. A, would reduce the number of ranks listed, by establishing an equivalence for subspecies and varietas, and eliminating subvarietas and subforma. As the authors of the proposal observe, many taxonomists do not make a distinction between "subspecies" and "variety" and they might indeed welcome the establishment of a nomenclatural equivalence which would not require new combinations for transfer from one of these ranks to the other (although a proposed Rec. 5oA bis to accomplish this was quickly rejected at Seattle on the basis of a strongly negative mail vote). The present proposal would apparently eliminate even the option of using both categories, and this would be contrary to the taxonomic judgements of some working taxonomists, even though many others do consider such refinement inappropriate. (See also Art. 24, Prop. A, & Rec. 26A, Prop. A.) The proposal does limit itself to ranks subordinate to kingdom and thus eliminates the apparent declaration that all plants belong to a single kingdom.

Prop. C, like some aspects of Prop. B, would appear to restrict taxonomic flexibility by not allowing for such categories as superfamily, cohors, stirps (mycology), grex, etc., which have sometimes been found useful for communication. No serious confusion seems to have resulted from the admittedly infrequent use of such categories by botanists who wish to employ them.

Prop. D. The Editorial Committee will bring the Article into accord with any action taken on Art. 3, Prop. B.

Article 6

Prop. A (79 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 830) - Substitute "subsp." for "var." in last line of the Article.

Prop. B (129 - Viczy, Taxon 23: 872) - Note I to read: "In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word 'name' means generally a name that has been validly published, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate, but it refers particularly to the uninominal names for taxa of higher rank than species. The word 'epithet' (specific or infraspecific) means the second term applied in the names of all species and infraspecific taxa, connected with a generic name and mostly according grammatically with the latter." "Examples: Asteraceae (a family name), Hieracium (a generic name), subgen. Pilosella sect. Pilosellina (name of a subgenus and sectio), Hieracium (a generic name) hoppeanum (specific epithet) ssp. multisetum var. testimoniale f. parcipilum (infraspecific epithets)." Prop. C (130 - Viczy, Taxon 23: 872) - The existing Examples under Note 2 to be called "simple combinations" and followed by new text: "In the case of a genus and below, 'combination' includes transfer (ascendent or descendent) of taxa with a change of rank (see Art. 49, 6o), called vertical transfer; collateral transfer by subordination to another taxon (see Art. 54, 55, 56,) without change of rank, called horizontal transfer; and horizontal transfer followed by change of rank, called vertical-horizontal transfer. "Examples of vertical transfer: Stenanthium (A. Gray 1837 pro sect.) Kunth 1843, nom. gen. cons.; Lolium temulentum L. var. arvense (With. 1796 as L. arvense) Bab. 1843- "Example of horizontal transfer: Glyceria maxima (Hartm. 182o as Molinia maxima) Holmberg 9I19. "Example of horizontal-vertical transfer: Gymnadenia conopea L. var. densiflora (Wahlb. 1806 as Orchis densiflora) Fried I85i."

FEBRUARY 1975 205

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions - Prop. D (13i Viczy, Taxon 23: 873) - Add: "'New combination' (comb. nova) means only the combination when first published." Comments Rapporteurs

Prop. A can be referred to the Editorial Committee for action depending on Art. 4, Prop. B.

Prop. B. If "name" is restricted to uninomials, it is not clear what one would call the usual binomial for a species. Likewise, if "epithet" is restricted to use for infraspecific levels, the accepted idea of a combination at, e. g., a subgeneric level is altered and this would require a change in Art. 21. Furthermore, a section on definitions is not the most appropriate place for a statement about grammatical agreement of epithets. The diverse examples of names and epithets, however, might usefully be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Prop. C. While the different kinds of transfer described may indeed be made, it has not been established that a need exists for special terminology for them - either in practice or elsewhere in the Code. Furthermore, it should be noted that not all "combinations" result from transfer (cf. Art. 21).

Prop. D. A similar statement could be made about "new species," a phrase which applies only at the time of first publication (some careless usage notwithstanding), but it does not seem to be a matter requiring legislation in the Code.

Article 7

Prop. A (23 - Special Committee, Taxon 23: 422) - After the first sentence, insert a new sentence: "Names of taxa in the higher ranks that are ultimately based on generic names are also typified (see Art. io)."

Prop. B (121 - Greuter, Taxon 23: 869) - Change the second sentence to read: "A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a taxon is perma- nently attached, whether as a correct name or as a synonym."

Prop. C (132 - Viczy, Taxon 23: 873) - Transfer the footnote in this Article and Recommendation 7B to the heading: "Section 2. Typification'"'

- - Prop. D (i33 Vaiczy, Taxon 23: 873) After neotypus, the definition of paratypus (footnote p. 76) should be added.

Comments Rapporteurs

Prop. A can be referred to the Editorial Committee for action to accord with Art. 16, Prop. A.

Prop. B. The proposal aims to offer less restrictive wording for those uncommon instances when a type is a figure or description (as allowed in Art. 9, Note i), as these may not really be considered "constituent" elements.

Prop. C can be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Prop. D. Two proposals before the Seattle Congress to bring the definition of paratype into Art. 7 were explicitly rejected after discussion.

Article 9

Prop. A (113 - Brummitt, Taxon 23: 865) - In Note i delete "description or"

Comments Rapporteurs: The argument for this proposal pointed out a genuine ambiguity in that the provision could under some circumstances be used to subvert the type method even in contemporary description of new taxa. Since the option exists to designate neotypes for taxa described before the requirement of types or otherwise

206 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions lacking them, it may not be necessary to permit use of a description in lieu of a specimen. An alternative would be to provide that descriptions may be used only for taxa described prior to I January 1958.

Article 10

Prop. A (24 - Special Committee, Taxon 23: 422) - Change the second paragraph to read: "The principle of typification does not apply to names of taxa above the rank of family, except for names that are automatically typified by being ultimately based on generic names (see Art. 16)."

Prop. B (122 - Greuter, Taxon 23: 870) - Change the first paragraph to read: "The type of a name of a genus or of any taxon between genus and species is the name of a species; that of a name of a family or of any taxon between family and genus is the generic name on which the former is based (see also Art. 18)."

Prop C (123 - Greuter, Taxon 23: 870) - Add the following Note: "If in the protologue of a name of a genus, or subdivision of a genus, the included material is not referred to by validly published specific names (binomials), then a binomial applying to one of the originally included elements must be designated as the type. Should it later appear that this binomial does not apply to any of the originally included elements, the choice of the type is superseded."

Prop. D (124 - Greuter, Taxon 23: 870) - Add the following Note: "If in the protologue of a name of a genus, or subdivision of a genus, some of the explicitly included elements are referred to by validly published specific names (binomials), and others are not, the choice of the type is not automatically restricted to the originally cited binomials. Names applying to the non-binomially designated elements, selected in accordance with Note [Prop. C], are equally eligible as types."

Comments Rapporteurs

Prop. A can be referred to the Editorial Committee for action in accord with Art. i6, Prop. A. Prop. B. While it is true that only names, not taxa, have types, the types themselves, above the species level, are taxa (as themselves appropriately typified).

Prop. C and D result from the same misunderstanding as Prop. B. It is not necessary that a species has a valid binomial in order that it (not its name!) may serve as a type.

Article 11

Prop. A (25 - Special Committee, Taxon 23: 422) - Change the last paragraph to read: "The principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa above the rank of family (see Art. i6 and Rec. I6B)." Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal can be referred to the Editorial Committee for action in accord with Art. 16, Prop. A.

Article 13

Prop. A (45 - Compare, Taxon 23: 663) - Amend section 'g' to read: "ALGAE, I May 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, ed. I). Exceptions: "NOSTOCACEAE HOMOCYSTEAE, I Jan. I892 (Gomont, Monographie des Oscil- lariees, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. VII. I5: 263-368; i6: 91-264). The two parts of Gomont's Monographie, which appeared in I892 and 1893 respectively, are treated as having been published simultaneously on I Jan. 1892. "NOSTOCACEAE HETEROCYSTEAE, I Jan. i886 (Bornet & Flahaut, Rvision des Nostocaches hittrocysttes, Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. VII. 3: 323-38I; 4: 343-373; 5: 51-I29; 7: I77-262). The four parts of the Rtvision, which appeared in i886, I887, and 1888 respectively, are treated as having been published simultaneously on I Jan. 1886.

FEBRUARY 1975 207

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "DESMIDIACEAE, I Jan. 1848 (Ralfs, British Desmidieae). "OEDOGONIACEAE, I Jan. 900oo(Hirn, Monographie und Iconographie der Oedo- goniaceen, Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn. 27(I))."

Prop. B (143 - Holm, Taxon 23: 876) - Add a new paragraph 'e bis' to read: "FUNGI: ASCOMYCETES, 31 Dec. 1822 (Fries, Systema Mycologicum vol. 2, part i). Syst. Mycol. 2, part 2, is treated as having appeared on Jan. I, 1823."

Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A aims to establish more precise dates for the starting-points in Algae, and is to be referred to the Committee for Algae.

Prop. B seeks to give the Ascomycetes their own starting-point book; arguments pro and con are extensively provided in Taxon, and these are to be considered by the Committee for Fungi and Lichens.

Article 14

Prop. A (46 - Greuter, Taxon 23: 665) - Add the following example to Note 3: "Enallagma Baillon (1888) is conserved against Dendrosicus Raf. (1838), but not against Amphitecna Miers (1868); if Enallagma and Amphitecna are united, the combined genus must bear the name Amphitecna, although the latter is not explicitly conserved against Dendrosicus." - - Prop. B (47 Greuter, Taxon 23: 665) Add the following sentence at the end of Note 3: "A rejected name may not be restored for a taxon which includes the type of the corresponding conserved name." Prop. C (iio - Brummitt & Meikle, Taxon 23: 864) - Modify Art. 14 and Division III to allow for conservation of specific names. (a) In line I insert "species," before "genera"; change line 4 to read "Appendices II, III, and IV"; and in line 6 delete "generic". (b) In Note 3, on the first line, after "all other names" insert "(apart from combinations of the same specific epithet under a different generic name)"; and add as a second sentence: "When a name of a species is conserved or rejected, all its homotypic synonyms including the same epithet at the same rank (i.e. combinations under different generic names) are also conserved or rejected against the same names as is that specific name, but are not conserved against their own homonyms." (c) In Note 5 after the word "name" insert "of a genus or family or intermediate rank". (d) Modify Division III Provision 2 to allow for one or more committees to deal with specific names. Prop. D (iii - Brummitt & Meikle, Taxon 23: 865) - Modify Art. 14 and Division III to allow for rejection of specific names. (a) Add a second paragraph: "Furthermore, this Code provides in Appendix IV lists of specific names which are to be rejected, either because of the provisions of Articles 69, 70, and 71 or for any other reason in the cause of nomenclatural stability. Such names are to be regarded as validly published but rejected." (b) In the first line of Note I after "conserved" insert "or rejected" and on the third line after "conservation" insert "or rejection". (c) Modify Division III Provision 2 to allow for one or more committees to deal with specific names. - - Prop. E (112 Brummitt & Meikle, Taxon 23: 865) A special committee should be set up to report on the desirability and practicability or otherwise of both conservation and rejection of specific names, and to present recommendations or proposals to the XIII International Botanical Congress.

Prop. F (144 - Tjaden, Taxon 23: 877) - In Note 3 read "exact synonym" instead of "nomenclatural synonym" and "qualified synonym" instead of "taxonomic synonym".

208 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Comments Rapporteurs

Prop. A. This example can be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Prop. B. This sentence would make explicit what must be deduced from the last sentence of Note 3, and is illustrated by the example in Prop. A.

Props. C, D, and E offer alternatives in an effort to promote stability of names at the specific level, where we have consistently in the past refused to provide the opportunity afforded to prevent upsets of well known generic or family names. Application of the Rules can cause "disadvantageous changes" in the nomenclature of species as well, and the question is always whether the Code can be adequately altered to accommodate some form of conservation and/or rejection at this level without entailing excessively complicated procedures or more work than the taxonomic community can be induced to undertake. Prop. C is the most far-reaching and would cover the greatest diversity of situations, as documented by the authors of the proposal. Prop. D is worded as an alternative but is also possible as additional provisions to Prop. C; as an alternative, it is more modest, but would serve at least to eliminate many names from upsetting usage, including those never very clearly treated by the controversial Arts. 69-71. Prop. E is intended to be considered only if Props. C and D are both rejected, and a "yes" vote on Prop. E will be interpreted to apply only under that condition. Prop. F. The phrases "nomenclatural synonym" (i.e., a synonym for nomenclatural reasons) and "taxonomic synonym" (i.e., a synonym for taxonomic reasons) are so widely used, and clearly defined in the "Glossary" (McVaugh, Ross, Stafleu) that they can hardly cause any confusion. However, if alternative terminology is desired, instead of introducing new phrases the established "objective synonym" and "subjective synonym" respectively could perhaps be added in parentheses, as they are employed in both the Zoological Code and the Bacteriological Code.

Article 16

Prop. A (26 - Special Committee, Taxon 23: 422) - Change the Article to read: "Names of taxa above the rank of family that are ultimately based on generic names are automatically typified (see Art. io); for such automatically typified names the rule of automatic tautonymy with appropriate ending (as exemplified in Art. i9) governs the name of the nomenclaturally typical subdivision of a division, the nomenclaturally typical subclass of a class, and the nomenclaturally typical suborder of an order. "The principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa above the rank of family." Prop. B (145 - Christensen, Taxon 23: 877) - Add a Note to the proposed new Art. 16 [Prop. A]: "Where one of the stems -monado-, -cocco-, -nemato-, or -clado- as second part of a generic name has been omitted in front of the ending -phyceae or -phyta, the shortened class or division name is still regarded as based on the generic name in question if such derivation is obvious or is indicated at establishment of the group name. "Examples: The class name Prasinophyceae is regarded as being based on the generic name Prasinocladus in agreement with the indication by Chadefaud (Rev. Sci. 85: 862. 1947). The division name Chrysophyta may be regarded as automatically typified by the generic name Chrysoccoccum if reintroduced as based on that name."

Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A has the unanimous support of the Special Committee appointed at the Seattle Congress to consider the matter of priority and typification at the higher levels. Since the new text maintains the present provision that the principle of priority is not mandatory at these levels, the effect is that one may use any validly published name. The new first paragraph only states that if such a name is ultimately based on a generic name it is automatically typified, ultimately, by that genus. This is a logical conclusion,

FEBRUARY I975 209

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions and does not require typification, in that another name, not based on a generic name, may be used. A favorable vote on this proposal implies acceptance of the rest of the package proposed by the Special Committee, which also suggests some examples (e.g., Pinophyta ultimately based on and typified by Pinus; Liliopsida ultimately based on and typified by Lilium).

Prop. B. Assuming acceptance of Prop. A, Prop. B would offer a clarification where there might be a question as to whether a name at higher rank (particularly in the Algae) was indeed based on a generic name. Acceptance of these shortened class and divisional names would apparently promote stability in algal nomenclature, and the Committee for Algae should express an opinion.

Recommendation16A

Prop. A (27 - Special Committee, Taxon 23: 422) - Change the first paragraph to read: "The name of a division is taken either from distinctive characters of the division (descriptive names) or from the name of an included genus; it should end in -phyta, except when it is a division of Fungi, in which case it should end in -mycota."

Prop. B (28 - Special Committee, Taxon 23: 422)- Add a Note: "When a name has been published with a termination not agreeing with this recommendation, the termination may be changed to accord with it, without change of author's name -or date of publication."

Prop. C (36 bis - Moore, Taxon 23: 651) - Add the following statement: "Two subkingdoms are recognized: the plant subkingdom (Subregnum Planta) and the fungous subkingdom (Subregnum Fungi)." Add the following after the first paragraph: "The name of a superdivision is formed in a similar manner; it is distinguished from a divisional name by an appropriate prefix or suffix or by the ending -phytera, except when it is a superdivision of fungi, in which case it should end in -mycotera." Amend paragraph (b) to read as follows: "The name of a superclass, of a class, of a subclass, or of a superorder is formed in a similar manner and should end as follows: "I. In the Algae: -phycia (superclass), -phyceae (class), -phycidae (subclass), and -phycodes (superorder)." "2. In the Fungi: -mycia (superclass), -mycetes (class), -mycetidae (subclass) and -mycodes (superorder)." "3. In the Cormophyta: -itia (superclass), -opsida (class), -idae (subclass), -ata (superorder)." - - Prop. D (95 Raven, Merxmiiller, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 832) Substitute "phylum" for "division" and "subphylum" for "subdivision."

Comments Rapporteurs

Prop. A. Part of the unanimous report of the Special Committee, this proposed rewording would make clearer the option of basing the names of higher taxa on the name of an included genus. Prop. B, likewise part of the unanimous Special Committee report, would provide the option (as a Recommendation) to take action similar to that required for family names under Art. i8, Note 2 (see also Art. 32, Note i). Prop. C. The first statement is not appropriate for a Code of Nomenclature, as it renders a taxonomic judgement as to the level at which certain taxa shall be recognized. The remainder of the proposal is basically dependent on Art. 4, Prop. A. Prop. D can be referred to the Editorial Committee for action dependent on Art. 3, Prop. B.

2IO TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions New Recommendation 16B

Prop. A (29 - Special Committee, Taxon 23: 422) - "In choosing among typified names for a taxon above the rank of family, authors should generally follow the principle of priority." Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal is part of the package unanimously proposed by the Special Committee to study names of higher taxa, and merely recommends consideration of priority, which is not mandatory under Art. I6 even if amended as proposed.

Article 18 - - Prop. A (i6 Rauschert, Taxon 21: 719) Replace the last sentence of Note 3 as follows: "The same applies for the name Asteraceae which is conserved against Com- positae, when the Asteraceae are regarded as a family distinct from the remainder of the Compositae. These are two exceptions to Art. SI."

Prop. B (39 - Petersen, Taxon 23: 657) - Change Note 2 to read: "When a name of a family has been published with an improper Latin termination, the termination is to be changed to conform with the rule, without change of the author's name." Prop. C (40 - Petersen, Taxon 23: 657) - Add a new Note: "In the fungi, a family name based on a validly published genus, but with vernacular termination, is to be accepted as though latinized, and its termination changed to conform with the rule, with priority from its original publication. "Examples: (I) The family name "Piptocephalideen" Brefeld. 1872. was accepted as Piptocephalidaceae Brefeld. 1872. by Benjamin (Aliso 4: 334. 1959). (2) The family "Tricholomees" Roze. 1876. was accepted as Tricholomataceae Roze. I876. by Singer (Agar. Mod. Taxonomy, 2nd. Ed.: 200. 1962)."

Comments Rapporteurs

Prop. A. The Asteraceae cannot really be regarded as distinct from the "remainder of the Compositae" for both names have the same type. (They could, e.g., be regarded as distinct from the Cichoriaceae or Ambrosiaceae.) The situation is the usual one regarding remodeling of taxa for which names are conserved, except that there are alternative names sanctioned by Art. 18. [One could, if he wishes, divide the grasses into Gramineae (nom alt. Poaceae) and, e.g., Panicaceae; or the Guttiferae (nom. alt. Clusiaceae) into Guttiferae and Hypericaceae.] The case involving the Leguminosae is indeed unique because three names are involved. Conservation of both Papilionaceae and Leguminosae (nom. alt. for both, Fabaceae) requires the special exception noted in Art. 5I and Art. 18, which is admittedly not very clear in indicating its effect. [If three families of legumes are recognized, they may be called Papilionaceae (or Fabaceae), Mimosaceae, and Caesalpiniaceae - not Leguminosae, Mimosaceae, and Caesalpiniaceae.]

Prop. B would insert the word "Latin" before "termination" and Prop. C then makes a special exception for fungi. The Subcommittee on Family Names can offer some advice here, especially in regard to the history of conservation of family names in the flowering plants, where many names were for safety conserved with the knowledge that there were no nomina rejicienda to be listed. (This wholesale conservation was not directly related to whether or not the first publication of a family name bore a vernacular ending.) It was presumably the intent of the Seattle Congress, in accepting Art. 32, Prop. E (now appearing as Art. 32, Note I), to cover all ranks of names in referring to "Latin terminations" and that proposal suggested that Art. 18, Note 2 could then be deleted. The Editorial Committee, it may be noted here, deliberately chose to retain Note 2, with a reference to the new Note in Art. 32, but omitted the word "Latin" to accord with Art. 17, Note 2 - thus failing to make the two notes consistent with Art. 32 in regard to Latin terminations. As described in the thorough historical discussion accompanying the present proposals, the intent of Art. I8, Note 2 has been to refer to Latin terminations. The Subcommittee for Family Names and the Committee

FEBRUARY I975 211

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions for Fungi and Lichens should consider whether an exception for the Fungi, or greater use of conservation in that group, is the appropriate solution.

Article 19

Prop. A (37 - Moore, Taxon 23: 651) - Change the first paragraph to read: "The name of a superfamily or of a subfamily is a plural adjective used as a substantive; it is formed by adding, respectively, the suffix -orae (superfamily) or the suffix -oideae (subfamily) to the stem of a legitimate name of an included genus." - - Prop. B (41 Petersen, Taxon 23: 657) Change the wording in Note 2 from "with an improper termination" to "with an improper Latin termination".

Prop. C (42 - Petersen, Taxon 23: 657) - Add a new Note: "In the fungi, a subfamily or tribe name based on a validly published genus, but with vernacular termination, is to be accepted as though Latinized, and its termination changed to conform with the rule, with priority from its original publication." - Prop. D (o103 - Brummitt & Chater, Taxon 23: 856) In Articles I9, 22, and 26 delete the word "not" preceding the words "to be taken into consideration for purposes of priority" and delete the sentence following this phrase. Add to each Article the sentence "The date of publication of an autonym is accepted as that of the first valid publication of a name of another taxon at the same rank under the same next higher taxon, whether or not the autonym appeared in print as such at that time." Also delete the Campanula example in Art. 26. - - Prop. E (zo4 Brummitt & Chater, Taxon 23: 856) The Editorial Committee should reconsider the definition of the word "autonym" in Articles 19, 22, and 26. - Prop. F (izo - Brummitt & Chater, Taxon 23: 858) Amend Articles 19, 22, and 26 to eliminate the changes brought about by acceptance of proposals 18i-i88 at the Seattle Congress.

Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A largely depends on whether more formal recognition of superfamilies, as urged in Art. 4, Prop. A, is introduced into the Code. Prop. B. The change would bring the wording here into clear conformity with Art. 32, Note i (adopted at Seattle). See also Art. I8, Prop. B. If a change is made here for consistency, presumably the same should be made in Art. 17, Note 2. Prop. C. See Art. I8, Prop. C. Again, an exception for fungi is proposed and the same action is appropriate here as for Art. I8, dealing with family names. Prop. D. Although the proposal refers to three articles, clearly the same action should be taken in all instances and it is appropriate to consider them as a package. These three articles were discussed at length, and with not a little confusion, at Seattle before the actions reflected in the present Code were taken. Now, certain key issues are clearly segregated for re-examination. The matter covered in the present Prop. D was first accepted at Seattle, in accord with a strong majority of the mail vote, but was rejected upon reconsideration the next day. Reasons for further reconsideration are carefully presented in Taxon 23: 852-855. One school of thought holds that autonyms had always to be taken into consideration for purposes of priority and that the matter only needed confirmation in the Code, since there had never been any indication that such names were not validly published as of the date they were "automatically created." Another school of thought, which ultimately prevailed at Seattle, holds that autonyms were not to be considered in matters of priority - even though this often resulted in adoption of an unfamiliar or highly inappropriate epithet when taxa were merged (e.g., Scirpus cyperinus var. brachypodus, based on plants of S. atrocinctus with abnormally congested inflorescences but necessarily adopted for all of the latter taxon if treated as a variety of the other species; Juncus tenuis var. uniflorus, upon merger of two species, for what previously had been known as J. dudleyi, the varietal epithet, based on an

212 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions unusually depauperate specimen, being the oldest in the rank if one does not consider the autonymous "var. dudleyi" to have equal priority). The effect of accepting this proposal would be to provide an option henceforward (under Art. 57) for adoption in a new combination of either an autonym or the epithet (of the same date) which created the autonym. Situations in which such a choice has, in effect, already been made would not be altered. If this proposal is accepted, it might be well to clarify the authorship to be cited for autonyms that serve as basionyms - presumably that of the species whose epithet they repeat. (Note: The new Bacteriological Code in paragraphs 117.1 and 123 provides for essentially the procedure proposed here.)

Prop. E is clearly to be referred to the Editorial Committee!

Prop. F is completely unrelated to Prop. D, although the same three articles are involved and this matter should likewise be treated as a package. The proposals to be retracted, if Prop. F is accepted, are those by Wood and Webster in Taxon 17: 645-65I (Dec. 1968), which the Seattle Congress accepted. Also accepted at Seattle was a series of proposals on the same subjects by Brummitt and Chater, and the Editorial Committee was instructed to incorporate whatever of the latter did not conflict with the primary acceptance of the Wood and Webster proposals. This, with some difficulty, the Editorial Committee accomplished. Acceptance of the present Prop. F would presumably leave in the Code whatever original Brummitt and Chater proposals (Taxon 17: 652-658) were accepted, and remove the Wood and Webster principle of restricting autonyms to subdivisions which contain the type of a genus or species (and also remove Recs. i9A, 22A, and 26A). Brummitt and Chater now (Taxon 23: 856-858) document with specific examples the unexpected name changes and confusion which can result from the Seattle action. They present an argument, not considered at Seattle, to the effect that - to illustrate with the Phyllanthus example under Art. 22, although the circumscription and rank of sect. Kirganelia and sect. Anisonema are indeed identitical, their position is not identical, as in the first case a subgenus is interpolated. Thus, having two possible sectional names under the previous edition of the Code does not contradict Principle IV and changes in nomenclature (depending in this case on whether the subgenus is recognized) are the expected consequences of changes in taxonomy. Under Art. 21, however, it can be argued that there is no difference in position since subdivisional names can be reduced to "binomials" with the name of a genus, just as infraspecific names can be reduced to trinomials. The two principal matters in Props. D and F should be carefully considered at Leningrad, for if action taken at the previous Congress has indeed proved to be ill- advised, then no further delay should occur in rescinding it before taxonomy or taxonomists become further confused. On the other hand, if the Seattle actions are reaffirmed at Leningrad, it will give them a firm status for future practice. If Prop. F is accepted, Principle IV, Prop. A is offered in case there is a feeling that the operation of autonymy can appear to contradict the present Principle IV.

Article 20

- - Prop. A (134 Vdczy, Taxon 23: 873) The first sentence to read: "The name of a genus is a substantive in the singular number, or a word treated as such; however it cannot have the standardized terminations provided in Art. 16-19 and 21."

Comments Rapporteurs: No justification or examples are provided in the original proposal and it is unlikely that many, if any, exist, since the standardized terminations for higher taxa are all plural and generic names are singular.

Recommendation 20A

Prop. A (i35 - V0iczy, Taxon 23: 873) - Add as follows: "(k) To avoid the terminations used in syntaxonomy for systematic categories, as: -etea, -etalia, -ion, -etum, -etosum, etc., e.g. Glochidion, Combretum, as well as the terminations of names for cultivated plants, as: -ara (see Art. 16 Code of Cult. Plants)."

FEBRUARY 1975 213

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Comments Rapporteurs: There might be some advantage in recommending avoidance of such names in the future, but we have managed well enough with Equisetum, Gnetum, Sitanion, etc.; and furthermore, there is no accepted codification of syntaxonomical terminology to provide applicable standards if this Recommendation is adopted.

Article 23

Prop. A (97 - Demoulin, Taxon 23: 842) - Add an example to (3): "Secretan, in his 'Mycographie Suisse' (1833) introduced a large number of new specific names, more than half of them of a trinomial type like Agaricus albus corticus, Boletus testaceus scaber, Boletus aereus carne lutea. He is therefore not considered to have consistently used the Linnaean system of binary nomenclature and even his univerbal epithets are not considered validly published."

Prop. B (136 - Vczy, Taxon 23: 873) - Add after paragraph 5: "The specific epithet, when adjectival in form but used as a substantive (particularly in the cases of early generic names) does not agree grammatically with the generic name. "Examples: Aesculus hippocastanum L., Allium victorialis L., Andropogon ischaemum L., Delphinium consolida L., Ruscus hypoglossum L., Sedum rosea (L.) Scop. (all these epithets are old generic names)."

- - Prop. C (i37 Vaiczy, Taxon 23: 873) Add at the end of (3) after the word "employed": "Such as in the cases of the names created Gilibert by J. E. (F1l.Lith. 1781; Exerc. Phyt. 1792), Ph. Miller (The Gard. Dict. ed. IV abridged, 1754), J. G. Kramer (Elench. Veg. I756), J. Hill (Brit. Herb., 1756)."

Prop. D (146 - Little, Taxon 23: 878) - After the word "tautonym" and examples (line I6) add: "A name is regarded as a tautonym if an orthographic variant of the specific epithet exactly repeats the generic name. "Example: Lycopersicon lycopersicum (L.) Karst. ex Farwell has the earlier orthographic variants Lycopersicum lycopersicum (L.) Karst. and Lycopersicon lycopersicon (L.) Karst. ex Britton et Brown."

Comments Rapporteurs

Prop. A is to be referred to the Committee for Fungi and Lichens. It would deal in a clearcut way with the problem of Secretan's names. Prop. B. The wording would reinforce the implication of paragraph 5, not to mention ordinary grammar, if this is thought necessary here. Prop. C offers several examples and can be referred to the Editorial Committee for consideration as such. Prop. D. The example offered clearly indicates the intent of the proposal, but the Rapporteurs have not explored the implications for other examples or the problem of defining what constitutes an orthographic variant. It could sometimes prove to be a problem knowing whether orthographic variants exist which would render a name inadmissible. The wisdom of adopting a modification of this potential scope therefore seems questionable. Recommendation23B

- - Prop. A (i47 Goloskokov, Taxon 23: 878) Add as follows: "(k) In making specific epithets derived from geographical names or from the names of persons to follow the generally accepted spelling or, in cases of the names of persons, the spelling which was commonly used by these persons themselves." Comments Rapporteurs: The motive, to reduce orthographic variants, is commendable, but "generally accepted" spellings may yet vary with, especially, different conventions for transliteration from non-roman alphabets.

214 TAXON VOLUME ?4

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Article 24 Prop. A (8o - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 830) - Add a fourth paragraph to read: "The following are to be interpreted as publication at the rank of subspecies: (i) The use of the term 'variety' (var., varietas), (2) a trinomial with the rank of the final epithet unstated; e.g., Valeriana locusta a olitoria L. = Valeriana locusta subsp. olitoria L." For the Herniaria example substitute: "Herniaria hirsuta subsp. diandra (not Herniaria diandra)." For the Rosa and Viola examples substitute: "Rosa jundzillii subsp. leioclada and Rosa glutinosa subsp. leioclada; Viola tricolor subsp. hirta in spite of the previous existence of a different species named Viola hirta." For the Saxifraga aizoon example substitute: "Drosera rotundifolia subsp. rotundifolia forma breviscapa (Regel) Domin; by this a full classification of the forma within the species is given." Add this paragraph: "Names published as varieties are to be regarded as subspecies without change of author's name." Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal should be considered in the same way as Art. 4, Prop. B.

Article 26 - - Prop. A (8i Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 830) Replace "variety" with "subspecies" in the Lobelia and Lycopodium examples and delete the third paragraph of the second set of examples [Lesquerella].

Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal can be referred to the Editorial Committee for action in accord with Art. 4, Prop. B.

Recommendation26A

Prop. A (82 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 830) - Delete the Recommendation.

Comments Rapporteurs: In case Art. 4, Prop. B is accepted, this Recommendation would be superfluous; its present examples, incidentally, do illustrate certain usages of the ranks of both subspecies and variety by taxonomists. (Note: this Recommendation would also be deleted by acceptance of Art. i9, Prop. F.)

Article 28

Prop. A (71 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 682) - Delete, and substitute: "Plants brought from the wild into cultivation retain the names that are applied to the same taxa growing in nature. "Hybrids, including those arising in cultivation, may receive names as provided in Appendix I and Arts. 40 and 5o. "Note. An additional independent set of infrageneric and infraspecific categories for plants used in agriculture, forestry, and horticulture (and arising either in nature or in cultivation) is defined in the International Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (Utrecht, 1969), where regulations are provided for the formation and use of names in those categories. Epithets published in conformity with the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature before I January 1959 are permitted to be used as cultivar epithets under the rules of the ICNCP, when this is considered to be the appropriate status for the taxa concerned. Otherwise, epithets for taxa in categories recognized by the ICNCP are required to be markedly different from those for categories recognized by the ICBN. "Examples of cultivar names: Taxus baccata 'Variegata' (based on T. baccata var. variegata Weston), Phlox drummondii 'Sternenzuber,' Viburnum xbodnantense 'Dawn.'"

Prop. B (83 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 830) - Substitute "subsp." for "var." in the first line of the first example.

FEBRUARY 1975 215

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Prop. C (148 - Spongberg & Shaw, Taxon 23: 878) - Change second paragraph to read: "Variants that arise in cultivation through hybridization, mutation, selection, or other processes, and which are of sufficient interest to cultivators to be distinguished by a name, receive cultivar epithets in common language (i.e. fancy epithets) markedly different from the Latin epithets of species and infraspecific taxa."

Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A is offered by the secretary of the Committee for Hybrids but is not at this time an official proposal from that committee. It offers a more thorough reference to the Code for Cultivated Plants, although it does not offer a definition of "cultivar." The proposal also eliminates any explicit mention of graft-chimaeras, leaving it to the Cultivated Code to deal with them. Prop. B can be referred to the Editorial Committee for action in accord with Art. 4, Prop. B and Prop. A above. Prop. C. This is another effort to harmonize the Cultivated Code and the Botanical Code, and eliminates the restriction "of infraspecific rank" in the present second paragraph. It also clarifies the distinction between horticultural "varieties" and the rank of varietas. Furthermore,it offers a good definition of "cultivar." Features of this proposal could be combined if desired with Prop. A.

Article 32 - - Prop. A (io McGillivray, Taxon 21: 718) Amend provision (2) to read: "have a form which complies with the provisions of Arts. 2-5, 16-27 (but see Art. 18, notes I, 2, and 3)." - - Prop. B (i3 McGillivray, Taxon 21: 718) Add under Examples of Names Not Validly Published: "The names first published in Gandoger, Flora Europae I883-1891 are contrary to Art. 4, paragraph2."

Prop. C (72 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 683) - If Art. H. 9, Prop. A, is accepted, delete "and Art. H. 7" in Art. 32, line 3.

Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A would add failure to comply with Arts. 2-5 to the list of invalidating conditions, although it is not clear what form a violation of Art. 2 could take and Art. 5 is already covered in Art. 32, paragraph 5 (which a companion proposal would delete). The suggestion could be referred to the Editorial Committee. Prop.B would presumablymean removing the Gandoger example from the end of Art. 33, but continues to reject Gandoger under a different provision. Prop. C is for the Editorial Committee. Recommendation32B

Prop. A (138 - Vaczy, Taxon 23: 873) - Treat as an Article (Note 5 of Art. 32) and reword: "In the Latin description or diagnosis of a new taxon published on or after I Jan. 1976, the charactersin which the taxon differs from its allies, and particularly from the type of the next higher taxon, must be printed in italics." Comments Rapporteurs:The intent is clear: to require that the differing points be mentioned in Latin and that comparison with the type of the next higher taxon be explicitly made. Since the proposal includes raising the status of the present Recommenda- tion to that of an Article, a starting point date would definitely be in order. The matter is clearly more fundamental than a Note if it becomes an Article, but in practice it is impossible to prescribe precision in a description so that raising this to the level of an Article may be inadvisable.

216 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Article 33 - - Prop. A (Ii McGillivray, Taxon 21: 718) Delete the second paragraph from the end ["A name given to a taxon ... containing families or tribes."].

Prop. B (12 - McGillivray, Taxon 21: 718) - Transfer the last paragraph and [Delphinium] example to Art. 32 as a new Note. Prop. C (84 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 830) - In the second paragraph from the end ["A name given to a taxon .. .], substitute "subspecies"for "varieties". Prop. D (98 - Demoulin, Taxon 23: 842) - Add the following new Note 3: "A new name (nomen novum) is an avowed substitute for a name that had previously been published for what was considered a new taxon. A new name can only be valid if the synonym which it replaces is valid and is only legitimate when it is introduced in application of Art. 72. Naming of a taxon that was previously known under a misapplied name is equivalent to the description of a new taxon, not the introduction of a new name. "Example: Cortinarius elegantissimus R. Henry, Rev. Mycol., VIII (2), Suppl.: 25 (i943) introduced as 'C. elegantissimus(n.n.) = C. elegantior (Fr.) ss. Henry in B.S.M. Fr. 94' is not validly published. The author should have considered this the name of a new taxon to be provided with a Latin diagnosis instead of a new name."

Prop. E (11 4 - Brummitt, Taxon 23: 865) - Amend the first paragraph to read: "A combination is not validly published unless the author actually uses the epithet or epithets in that particular combination."

Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A is dependent on Art. 32, Prop. A, but this alternative to the present Articles makes things less clear. It is desirable to have in Art. 33 a paragraph clearly stating what is to be done with names denoted by a misplaced term. Prop. B is also related to Art. 32, Prop. A, although not strictly dependent upon it. Both paragraphs were formerly in Article 5, but were transferred to Art. 33 by the Editorial Committee following the Montreal Congress. The material should not be treated as a Note. Prop. C. The Editorial Committee will respond in accord with action on Art. 4, Prop. B. Prop. D. The first two sentences merely restate what is included in Art. 72 as clearly reworded at Seattle. The third (last) sentence naturally follows upon the existing definition of a nomen novumrnand its typification in Art. 72. The naming of a new taxon to replace the misapplicationof a name is valid depending upon the requirements at the time (e.g., Latin diagnosis, indication of type). In the example offered - which can be referred to the Editorial Committee - the name published in 1943 was incorrectly called by its author a nomen novum and it is indeed invalid since there is no Latin diagnosis either in 1943 or in the cited place of misapplication of another name (0935)- Prop. E. This proposal received a strongly favorable mail vote before the Seattle Congress but was for some reason rejected on the floor. As noted by the proposer,it merely brings the wording of the Article into line with current practice and its own examples. The word "indicates"is imprecise. Article 34 Prop. A (34 - Hawksworth & Sutton, Taxon 23: 567) - Add a new Note: "Note 3. Provision no. 2 does not apply to names or epithets in Fungi typified by imperfect state specimens placed in perfect state genera in anticipation of their perfect states being discovered in the future and being found to belong to that genus if the author accepts the name in the perfect state genus as the correct one for that taxon. Such names are validly published but illegitimate (see Art. 59)."

FEBRUARY 1975 217

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Prop. B (99 - Demoulin, Taxon 23: 842) - Modify Note 2 so as to read: "By 'incidental mention' of a new name or combinationis meant mention in the course of a text and not as head of a section of a taxonomic or floristic work, by an author who does not intend to introduce the new name or combination concerned. A simple entry on a list of taxonomical nature (index to a flora or work of Steudel's Nomenclator botanicus type) can act as a valid publication if the requirementsof Art. 32-45 are satisfied (attention should specially be drawn on Art. 32, 33 and various provisions of this Art.)." - - Prop. C (II5 Brummitt, Taxon 23: 866) In the first paragraph, delete item (3) "when it is merely mentioned incidentally" and delete Note 2.

Prop. D (116 - Brummitt, Taxon 23: 866) - Delete Example 3 (Jollya) and substitute one or more true examples of a name not validly published because it was mentioned incidentally.

Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A is to be referred to the Committee for Fungi and Lichens. Prop. B is an attempt to provide needed guidelines as to what constitutes "incidental mention." However, the problem is still not solved as to how one interpretsthe intention of an author. Nor is it clear how any case that might be considered"incidental mention" could not also be dealt with under other provisions for valid publication. Prop. C is a different attempt to deal with "incidental mention"- namely, to delete the concept. Any application is highly subjective, and the Editorial Committee has been unable to elicit any examples of names which could be rendered invalid only by this provision if other requirementsof valid publication are met. [The Jollya example (3) is a nomen nudum.] The provision does seem superfluous,even confusing if taken seriously, as pointed out in the argumentwith the original proposal. Prop. D is offered as an alternative to Prop. C, if a good example can be cited. Persons voting for this proposal are presumably prepared to offer an unequivocal example to the Editorial Committee!

Article 35 - - Prop. A (io7 Brummitt, Chater, & Greuter, Taxon 23: 86o) The Article to read: "A new name published on or after i Jan. 1953 without a clear indication of the rank of the taxon concerned is not validly published. "Note. New names and combinationswithout a clear indication of rank are validly published before 1953, provided that all other requirementsfor valid publication are fulfilled; they are, however, inoperative in questions of priority except for homonymy. If they are new names, they may serve as basionyms or replaced synonyms for subsequentcombinations or new names in a different rank. "Example: The groups Soldanellae, Sepincoli, Occidentales, etc., were published without any indication of rank under the genus Convolvulus by House in Muhlenbergia4: 50 (190o8). These names are validly published but they are not in any definite rank and have no status in questions of priority except that they may act as homonyms. "The group Pachycladae was published by Boissier in DC., Prodr. I5 (2): 107 (1862) under the genus Euphorbia. This was later given sectional rank by Tutin in Feddes Repert. 79: 54 (1968) as Euphorbia sect. Pachycladae (Boiss.) Tutin." Prop. B (io8 - Brummitt, Chater, & Greuter, Taxon 23: 86o) - Add a Note: "If in a given publication, prior to 1900oo,only one infraspecific rank is admitted it is considered to be that of variety unless this would be contrary to the statements of the author himself in the same publication." Prop. C (109 - Brummitt, Chater, & Greuter, Taxon 23: 86i) - Add a Note: "In questions of indication of rank, all publications appearing under the same title and by the same author, such as different parts of a Flora issued at different times (but

218 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions not different editions of the same work), must be considered as a whole, and any statement made therein designating the rank of taxa included in the work must be considered as if it had been published together with the first instalment." Prop. D (149 - Silva, Taxon 23: 878) - Add example to clarify application: * "Example: Orobanche Gymnocaulis Nuttall (Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 2: 59. i818) was first assigned a definite rank (section) by Pfeiffer (Nomencl. Bot. I: I523. 1874), thus becoming post facto Orobanche sect. Gymnocaulis Nuttall 1818."

Prop. E (150 - Wood & Spongberg, Taxon 23: 879) - Change to read: "A new name published without indication of the rank of the taxon concerned is not validly published. Valid publication of such names (provided that other requirements for valid publication are fulfilled) is accomplished by the first author to assign a definite rank, and such names are dated from the publication of the rank-assigning author, who is also the publishing author. "Examples: Orobanche * Gymnocaulis Nuttall (Gen. N. Am. Pl. 2: 59. I8I8) was first assigned a definite rank by Pfeiffer (Nomencl. Bot. I: 1523. 1874); the sectional epithet Gymnocaulis thus dates from I874, not I818, and the combination is cited as Orobanche sect. Gymnocaulis Nutt. ex Pfeiffer, or, if only the publishing author is cited, as Orobanche sect. Gymnocaulis Pfeiffer (cf. Recommendation 46C). Similarly, the name Anoplanthus a. Euanoplon Endlicher (Gen. PI. 727 I1839) was validated by Walpers (Repertorium3: 480. I844) at the rank of section. As a result, Euanoplon is an older sectional epithet than Gymnocaulis, and the correct name for this section of Orobanche in the circumscription adopted by Thieret is Orobanche sect. Euanoplon (Endl. ex Walp.) Thieret (Jour. Arnold Arb. 52: 425. 1971). "The name Triticum junceum * pungens Persoon (Syn. Pl. I: 109. I8o5) is not in any definite rank and is not validly published. The epithet pungens was taken up at specific rank and validly published in the combination Triticum pungens Pers. ex DC. or as Triticum pungens DC."

Comments Rapporteurs Props. A, D, and E offer three different solutions to what has obviously been a confusing situation, which requires as unambiguous clarification as possible. Any one of these proposals would offer a definite ruling on the status, date, and authorship of names published without a clear indication of rank (prior to the 1953 requirement of such indication). Prop. A combines features of previous proposals to the Seattle Congress, all of which were rejected despite a strongly favorable mail vote on the basic Prop. A (Brummitt & Chater). As the arguments now presented (Taxon 23: 859-860) point out, there is clear precedent (Art. 64, para. 3) for considering certain names as homonyms regardless of rank. Prop. A therefore introduces no drastically new concept in also providing that names of subdivisions of a genus and of infraspecific taxa within a species are to be considered for purposes of homonymy even if not published with any precise indication of rank. The essence of this proposal is then that the epithets in such names are considered validly published, without rank and not to be considered in questions of priority until a choice of rank is made by a subsequent author, to whom a new combination is attributed. (See also Prop. B for additional clarification regarding infraspecific ranks.) Prop. D proposes by means of an example to interpret the second paragraph of the Article as allowing retroactive assignment of rank, priority, and authorship as of the date of first publication without rank. Prop. E, on the contrary, would assign rank, date, and authorship to the first publication of a name with assignment of rank. The statement of the authors notwithstanding (Taxon 23: 88o), it would appear that numerous name changes would result from acceptance of this proposal unless some accommodation is made for the countless infraspecific names published as undesignated trinomials (see Prop. B). Prop. B is essentially the same as Prop. E presented to the Seattle Congress, where it was rejected despite a strongly favorable mail vote and the statement of the Rapporteurs

FEBRUARY 1975J 219

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions that it seemed desirable. While the proposal still seems desirable to clarify what has long been assumed to be the status of many I8th and i9th Century trinomials, it would be even more essential if Prop. A or, especially, Prop. E were now adopted. Prop. C like Prop. B, is desirable in its own right, regardless of action on other proposals - as we stated for a similar proposal in 1969.

Article 36

Prop. A (38 - Baum, Taxon 23: 653) - Add a new paragraph: "A matrix of taxa by character-states, discriminant functions, canonical loadings or the like, may be used with equal status to Latin descriptions or diagnoses, the names of the various character-states being referred to in Latin."

Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal does not seem necessary, since the present Art. 36 in no way prohibits the use of mathematical material nor does it prescribe a form which the required Latin description or diagnosis must take. If, as the proposal suggests, character-states "referred to in Latin" are defined in figures rather than additional words, a description would not be invalid (and the figures need not be Roman numerals!).

Article 41

Prop. A (- Potonie, Taxon 20: 382) - Add a Note: "This Article applies to fossil for names after I plants only published January 1953." Prop. B (49 - Rauschert, Taxon 23: 669) - Insert after paragraph I: "Ein Literatur- oder Autorzitat, das einem Artnamen folgt, stellt keinen Hinweis auf eine friihere Gattungsbeschreibung oder -diagnose dar. Dies gilt auch fuir uninominale Artnamen." Add at the end of the Article: "Beispiel fiir nicht giiltig verbffentlichte Gattungsnamen: Das Autorzitat in dem bei Fabricius (Enum. meth. hort. med. Helmstad. 4. 1759) ver6ffentlichten Artnamen "LILIASTRUM Alpinum T." stellt keinen Hinweis auf die Gattungsdiagnose bei Tournefort dar." - Prop. C (50o Rauschert, Taxon 23: 670) - Insert after paragraph 2: "Die von Sdguier in seinem Plantarum quae in agro Veronensi reperiuntur supplemen- tum seu volumen tertium (1754) verwendeten Gattungsnamen werden auf Grund des Titels dieses Werkes und eines allgemeinem Hinweises im Vorwort als giiltig publiziert angesehen, soweit sie in einem der ersten beiden Binde desselben Werkes (1745) von einer Beschreibung oder Diagnose begleitet sind."

Comments Rapporteurs

Prop. A. The argument for this proposal (Taxon 20: 381) suggests that it had "been forgotten" to transfer the date from the old Art. PB 3 of the Stockholm Code to the Montreal Code. However, the Montreal Congress, on report of the Palaeobotanical Committee, accepted Art. PB 3, Prop. C (originally published in Taxon 7: 230) to delete the Article as contradictory to Art. 36 [now 38], and accepted a proposal co incorporate Art. PB 6 as a new Note under Art. 41 [now 42]. (See Montreal Report, Reg. Veg. 20: 93-94.) Consequently, the differences between Arts. 41 and 42 are deliberate. The Committee for Fossil Plants should consider this proposal and at the same time Art. 42, Prop. A and the arguments presented for it. Prop. B is mainly intended to deal with certain generic names of Fabricius, but it is not wise to insert in the Code a rule of general nature merely to deal with one book. In some cases a reference like "T." for Tournefort is perfectly unambiguous even if the full citation is not given.

Prop. C refers even more clearly to a specific publication and would rule as validly published those generic names in Sdguier's 3rd volume (I754) if there is a description or diagnosis in the first two volumes (I745) of the same work. Certain names of Siguier

220 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Full accepted, e.g. by Dandy (Reg. Veg. 5I), as validly published would not be accepted. documentation and lists accompany the proposal as published in Taxon. The whole matter may well be an example, to be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Article 42

- follows: Prop. A (I9 - Jansonius, Taxon 22: 259) The second paragraph to read as "A description or diagnosis of a new species assigned to a monotypic new genus is treated also as a generic description or diagnosis if the genus is not separately defined. A description or diagnosis of a monotypic new genus based on a new species is treated also as a specific description or diagnosis if the generic name and specific epithet are published together and the species is not separately defined."

Comments Rapporteurs: The sole change is to eliminate the second sentence of paragraph 2, referring to fossil plants (and to incorporate paragraph 3). The proposal therefore is to be referred to the Committee for Fossil Plants for consideration of the full arguments presented. (See also comment under Art. 41, Prop. A.)

Recommendation 46E - - Prop. A (20 Compare, Taxon 22: 703) The Recommendation to read: "The citation of an author who published the name before the starting point of the group concerned (see Art. 13) is indicated, when such indication is considered useful or desirable, preferably between square brackets. "Examples: Lupinus [Tourn.] L.; Boletus piperatus [Bull.] Fr." Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal seeks to restore the previous wording, changed by the Editorial Committee to accord with their understanding of commitments made at Montreal but not adequately recorded or put into effect. (In recent practice, "ex" seems to have been much more widely used than square brackets, regardless of the wording of Rec. 46E.) While there was no apparent dissent from the floor when the matter came up at Seattle, a clear decision at this time would be desirable. It should be pointed out that names published before the prescribed starting-point dates are not validly published. Consequently, if Rec. 46E did not exist at all, Rec. 46C would apply. The use of ex in Rec. 46E is consistent with its use for all other types of reference to invalid names as in Rec. 46C (herbarium names, MS. names, etc.). If an exception, such as square brackets, is desired for names invalid because of their publication prior to starting-point dates, there should be some real advantage presented for it. All groups of plants have a starting-point date, but the Special Committees for those with dates later than 1753 may wish to give special attention to this proposal.

New Recommendation 46G A - Taxon Prop. (55 Komdrek, 23: 677)- "When it is necessary to cite a misinterpretation exclusive of the type, the name of the responsible author should be placed after the name of the original author, using the word sensu. In this case, priority is connected with the date of publication of the misinterpretation."

Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal is intended to prescribe use of sensu for "emenda- tions" (cf. Rec. 47A) in which the type is excluded, and to treat the "emending" author as publishing author (see argument in Taxon). Some redaction by the Editorial Committee would be necessary if the proposal is accepted.

Recommendation 47A

- - Prop. A (54 Komirek, Taxon 23: 676) Change to read as follows: "When the alteration mentioned in Art. 47 has been considerable, the nature of the change and the author responsible should be indicated by adding such words, abbreviated where suitable, as mutatis characteribus (mut. char.), pro parte (p. p.), excluso genere or

FEBRUARY 1975 221

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions exclusis generibus (excl. gen.), exclusa specie or exclusis specibus (excl. sp.), exclusa varietate or exclusis varietatibus (excl. var.), sensu amplo (s. ampl.), sensu stricto (s. str.), inclusive (incl.), etc. Such a note with the citation of the author's name has the character of a literary quotation and should not be connected with the preceding name of a taxon in the sense of Art. 46."

Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal would eliminate use of emend. when a type is included in an emended concept (cf. proposed new Rec. 46G for cases when the type is not included). This proposal would also add inclusive to the list of words now in the Recommendation and would add a sentence to make clear that any citation of an emending author has no standing under Art. 46. However, according to the argument in Taxon, when the type is not excluded, citation of the emending author is not justified and violates Art. 47. Perhaps the phrase "the author responsible" can be interpreted to mean "responsible for the original name," not "responsible for the emendation"; if the phrasing is confusing on this point, the Editorial Committee should improve it regardless of any other action on this proposal.

Article 48

Prop. A (ioo - Demoulin, Taxon 23: 842) - Add "deliberately" between "to exclude" and "the original type".

Comments Rapporteurs: The insertion of "deliberately" (or "explicitly") is designed to sharpen the Article "in the way Art. 63 has been"; however, Art. 63 uses the phrase "either explicitly or by implication" and this is much broader, requiring less judgment as to the intent of an author.

Article 50

Prop. A (85 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 830) - The last two lines of the Carya example to read: "as a subspecies (variety); if regarded as a nothomorph, the name is cited as Carya x laneyi nm. chateaugayensis Sarge. (pro subsp.)."

Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal will be dealt with by the Editorial Committee in accord with whatever action is taken on Art. 4, Prop. B.

Recommendation 50F

Prop. A (86 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 831) - In the Zanthoxylum, Quercus, Spiraea, and Juniperus examples, substitute "subsp." for "var."

Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal is another matter for the Editorial Committee, depending on action on Art. 4, Prop. B.

Article 51

Prop. A (17 - Rauschert, Taxon 21: 720) - Replace the second paragraph as follows: "Exceptions are made only for the family names Papilionaceae, Leguminosae and Com- positae which must be changed by an alteration of the circumscription (see Art. i8, Note 3)." Comments Rapporteurs: The name Compositae, which it is proposed to add here, does not in fact offer an exception (see Comments on Art. I8, Prop. A).

Article 53

Prop. A (87 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 831) - Replace the last paragraph of examples with the following: "Valeriana locusta L. (Sp. P1. 33. I753) was originally treated by Linnaeus as consisting of two subspecies: a olitoria and f3 vesicaria. These subspecies were subsequently elevated to specific rank as, respectively, Valerianella olitoria (L.) Pollich (Hist. P1. Palat. 1: 30. 1776) and Valerianella vesicaria (L.) Moench

222 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions (Meth. 493 I1794), but the correct name for the former is Valerianella locusta (L.) Laterrade (Fl. Bordelaise ed. 2: 93. 1821)." The last paragraph should be deleted and replaced with the following: "The same rule applies to infraspecific taxa, viz. to a subspecies divided into two or more subspecies, or a forma divided into two or more formae." Comments Rapporteurs: This Proposal can be referred to the Editorial Committee for action in accord with Art. 4, Prop. B. Independent of the subspecies/variety question, however, it is not clear what improvement is meant by the example, which adds generic transfer (and taxonomic opinion) to the point illustrated simply by the existing Hemerocallis example.

Article 56 Prop. A (88 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 831) - Throughout the example, change all references to variety to subspecies. Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal will be dealt with by the Editorial Committee in accord with whatever action is taken on Art. 4, Prop. B.

Article 57 Prop. A (48 - Greuter, Taxon 23: 665) - Add "14" to the list of Articles cited at the end of the first sentence.

Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal can be referred to the Editorial Committee. Article 59 Prop. A (33 - Hawksworth & Sutton, Taxon 23: 565) - Add the following paragraph and example: "The nomenclatural type of a taxon whose name has been ascribed to a genus characterised by an imperfect state must be one of which the original protologue included a description or diagnosis of the imperfect state. If this requirement is not fulfilled the name, although validly published, shall be considered illegitimate. Where the nomenclatural type of a taxon whose name has been ascribed to a genus characterised by an imperfect state includes both the perfect state and the imperfect state of the fungus, and where both states were included in the original diagnosis or description, the name is considered as validly published only as the name of the imperfect state and must be typified by the portion of the type specimen bearing the imperfect state. New combinations based on epithets in imperfect state genera, but whose original diagnosis or descriptions included both states, into genera typified by perfect states shall be treated as not validly published as new combinations, but as validly published new names based on the perfect state portion of the type specimen when the original place of publication of the epithet included (a) a valid description of the perfect state (in Latin, on or after i Jan. 1935) and (b) the designation of a type bearing both states (on or after I Jan. 1958). However, publication on or after I Jan. 1976 of a new combination based on an epithet in an imperfect state genus originally applied inclusive of both imperfect and perfect states into a genus characterised by a perfect state shall be considered as not validly published as a new name of the perfect state. The name Penicillium helicum & Fennell "Examples: Raper (Mycologia 4o: 515. 1948) included a description in Latin of both the imperfect and perfect states of the fungus and a type which comprised both states of the species; this name must be typified by the imperfect state portion of the type specimen. The new combination Talaromyces helicus (Rapper & Fennell) Benjamin (Mycologia 47: 684. 1955) is consequently treated as not validly published as a new combination as the generic name Talaromyces is characterised by a perfect state, but it is validly published as a new name which must be cited as Talaromyces helicus Benjamin and which is typified by the perfect state portion of the type specimen of Penicillium helicum Raper & Fennell. A name published in this manner after I Jan. 1976, however, is not validly published either as a new combination or a new name, the name for the perfect state being correctly formed after this date

FEBRUARY 1975 223

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions only by introducing a new species name (which may or may not bear the same epithet as the imperfect state) accompanied by a description of the perfect state in Latin (or a reference to a previously validly published description of the perfect state) and the designation of a type specimen bearing the perfect state. The name Penicillium stipitatum Thom (in Emmons, Mycologia 27: 138. 1935) was based on material comprising both imperfect and perfect states but a Latin diagnosis was provided only for the perfect state. This name is consequently validly published but illegitimate for both the perfect and the imperfect states of this species."

Prop. B (36 - Weresub, Malloch, & Pirozynski, Taxon 23: 577) - Delete paragraph 3 in the text, and the first paragraph under Examples. - - Prop. C (Ii9 Laundon, Taxon 23: 868) In paragraph 4, insert between the first and second sentences: "Such a name now considered the validly published name of a new taxon, is also to be considered the basionym of subsequent combinations in genera characterized by the perfect state but previously treated as typified by an imperfect state." "Example: Pucciniastrum polypodii (Pers.) Dietel (Hedwigia 38 beiblatt: 260. 1899), syn. 'Uredo polypodii (Pers.) DC.' (= Uredo linearis B. polypodii Pers.), published with a description of the perfect state, is considered not validly published as a new combination (since the type of the basionym does not bear the perfect state) but validly published as a new name of a new species which is cited as Pucciniastrum polypodii Dietel. The subsequent combination 'Hyalopsora polypodii (Pers.) P. Magn.' (Deutsch. Bot. Ges. i9: 582. I901) placed in a genus characterised by the perfect state is considered to be based on Pucciniastrum polypodii Dietel and accordingly is cited as Hyalopsora polypodii (Dietel) P. Magn., even though Magnus did not in any way refer to P. polypodii Dietel."

Comments Rapporteurs: All proposals should be referred to the Committee for Fungi and Lichens, together with the full and competing original arguments in Taxon and the subsequent ones (23: 659-661).

Article 60

Prop. A (89 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 831) - In the second and third paragraphs of examples, replace "var." with "subsp."

Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal will be dealt with by the Editorial Committee in accord with whatever action is taken on Art. 4, Prop. B.

Article 63 Prop. A (73 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 683) - Add after the examples to paragraph 2: "Note. An indication of the parents of a hybrid is not to be regarded as a citation of synonymy. "Example: Polypodium xmantoniae Rothm. was incorrectly proposed as a name for P. vulgare subsp. prionodes x subsp. vulgare; although only one specific name is mentioned in the parentage, P. xmantoniae is not, because of this, a synonym of that name." - Prop. B (74 Yeo, Taxon 23: 683) - Add to paragraph 2 and the first set of examples: "A type may also be included through the automatic circumscription of an interspecific hybrid by the operation of Art. H. 3, para. 2. "Example: The name Polypodium xshivasiae Rothm. (proposed in I962 for P. australe x P. vulgare subsp. prionodes) must cover all hybrids between P. australe and P. vulgare, and as it was accepted by Rothmaler that these include P. xfont-queri Rothm. (1936), P. xshivasiae is a superfluous name."

Prop. C (75 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 683) - Add a new paragraph: "A statement of parentage accompanying the publication of a name for a hybrid cannot make the name superfluous. "Example: The name Polypodium xshivasiae Rothm. (1962) was proposed for hybrids between P. australe and P. vulgare subsp. prionodes, while at the same time the author

224 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions accepted P. xfont-queri Rothm. (1936) for hybrids between P. australe and P. vulgare subsp. vulgare. Under Art. H. 3, para. 2, P. xshivasiae is a synonym of P. xfont-queri; nevertheless, it is held not to be a superfluous name."

Prop. D (120 - Laundon, Taxon 23: 869) - Add the following: "A name or epithet is not to be rejected under this Article if it was merely ascribed to the wrong author, but is the same name or epithet as given by the author to whom it should have been ascribed and if there is no indication the type of the name of the latter author was excluded." "Example: 'Uredo scillarum Grev.' ex Berk. (in Smith, Engl. Flora 5(2): 376. 1836) included in synonymy the previously published Puccinia scillarum Baxt. (Stirp. Crypt. Oxon.: 40. 1825); the name must be cited Uredo scillarum (Baxt.) Berk. Similarly 'Uromyces scillarum (Grev. ex Berk.) Wint.' based on 'Uredo scillarum Grev.' ex Berk. and given without a direct reference to P. scillarum Baxt. must nevertheless be cited Uromyces scillarum (Baxt.) Wint." - Prop. E (125 - Greuter, Taxon 23: 871) Change the last paragraph to read: "A name is not illegitimate, even if it was nomenclaturally superfluous when published, if it derives from a basionym which is legitimate (or whose final epithet is legitimate). When published it is incorrect, but it may become correct later."

Prop. F (126 - Greuter, Taxon 23: 871) - Add the following example: "The generic name Hordelymus (Jessen) Harz (Samenkunde 2: 1147. I885), based on the legitimate Hordeum subgen. Hordelymus Jessen (Deutschl. Griiser 202. 1863), was superfluous when published, because its type, Elymus europaeus L., is also the type of Cuviera Koeler (Descr. Gram. Gall. Germ. 328. 1802). Cuviera Koeler has since been rejected in favour of its younger homonym Cuviera DC., and Hordelymus (Jessen) Harz can now be used as a correct name for the segregate genus comprising Elymus europaeus L."

Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A. In describing a hybrid, an author normally refers to the parents by name, but recognition of a hybrid would seem clearly to exclude the types of the names of the parents - making this proposal unnecessary. (In the peculiar circumstances of the proposed example, with two subspecies of the same species mentioned as parents, P. x mantoniae would be inadmissible under Art. 24, paragraph 3, but according to the second paragraph of examples to Art. 24 is to be altered to subspecific rank. See also Art. H. 6, Prop. B.) Props. B and C are alternatives for dealing with names which in either case are not to be used, that is, names other than the earliest applied to interspecific hybrids. Prop. C would rule that these are merely synonyms, but not superfluous as defined in Art. 63. Prop. B would rule that they are superfluous and hence clearly illegitimate. It is not thus far explicitly stated in the Code that names rejected under Art. H. 3, para. 2 are illegitimate. The only practical difference between the proposals appears to be that if Prop. B is accepted, a later name using in another position the epithet of the illegitimate name would be treated as new under Art. 72 (Note), while if Prop. C is accepted, such later usage would be treated as a new combination.

Prop. D. The wording itself might be interpreted too broadly to legitimize homonyms, but the examples could be referred to the Editorial Committee for inclusion under Art. 33, Note 2, which they seem to illustrate well.

Prop. E offers a minor change in wording which may be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Prop. F offers an example to the Editorial Committee.

Article 64

Prop. A (14 - Rauschert, Taxon 21: 719) - Delete the words "of the same name" in the Note.

FEBRUARY 1975 225

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions - Prop. B (51 Rauschert, Taxon 23: 672) - Change the last paragraph to read: "Werden zwei oder mehr gleichlautende Namen gleichzeitig fiir verschiedene Taxa ver6ffentlicht, so hat man sich dem ersten Autor anzuschliessen, der einen von diesen aufnimmt und den (die anderen verwierft oder der fiir diese Taxa bis auf eines andere Namen bestimmt."

Prop. C (90o - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 831) - Delete the second and third paragraphs of the second set of examples.

Comments Rapporteurs Props. A and B can be referred to the Editorial Committee. Prop. C would be necessary if Art. 4, Prop. B is accepted and can be referred to the Editorial Committee for appropriate action in that light.

Article 69

Prop. A (77c - Faegri, for Special Committee, Taxon 23: 827) - The Article to read: "A name must be rejected if it has been widely and persistently used for a taxon not including its type. Names thus rejected shall be placed [on] a list of nomina rejicienda. "Note. Wide usage is documented by the use of the name in the wrong sense in... non-taxonomic texts which are effectively published according to Arts. 29-3I before i January 19-." Comments Rapporteurs: If no definitive action is taken in regard to Art. 14, which might make this proposal superfluous, it should be considered on its own merits - and it consists of three distinct elements (divided on the mail ballot): (i) The first sentence offers a somewhat clearer statement than the existing wording of the Article, and would cover the very real problem of names which would become sources of error and confusion if their correct typification would require a major shift in usage; but it would not, require (as the present Article does) that we wait for such confusion to be "long persistent" before the name is to be rejected. (2) The second sentence offers a more restricted form of nomina specifica rejicienda than any proposal to modify Article 14, being limited to cases covered by Art. 69. Many botanists have felt the need for such . list in order to give meaning to Art. 69. Procedures for establishing such a list would have to be set up. [N.B.: Points (I) and (2) were discussed by Dandy in the Seattle Report, pp. 89-92.] (3) The proposed Note attempts to give a rigid construction to "widely and persistently used" by specifying a definite number of "non-taxonomic texts" in which the wrong use of a name must occur for the name to be considered for rejection. Admitting the subjective nature of "widely and persistently" as well as of the present "long-persistent," such attempted precise definition would also prove to have subjective elements (what is a "non-taxonomic text"? - volume of a general botanical journal, ecological monograph in a series, pamphlet from a botanical garden?). Procedures to document the need for rejection could be established by whatever group is to maintain the list required in the second part of the proposal - just as the Special Committees now evaluate each nomen conservandum propositum on its own merits. It should be understood that this proposal, like the present Art. 69, only provides for the rejection of names which have been used in a sense that has excluded their types. A well known name which is discovered to be in use for a taxon which does not include its type could be retained in its well known sense only by a procedure for conservation.

Article 70

Prop. A (77a - Special Committee, Taxon 23: 825) - Delete Article 70. Comments Rapporteurs: The Special Committee to study this Article concludes that any name can be typified if necessary or else it "has no standing." There has long been widespread sentiment to delete this Article on these grounds, although it is not clear what one does with names that cannot be typified - what is their status (at least until, e.g., a neotype is proposed)?

226 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Article 71

Prop. A (77b - Special Committee, Taxon 23: 825) - Delete Article 71.

Comments Rapporteurs: In view of the problem of defining a monstrosity, the Special Committee to study the Article proposes to delete it, in line with widespread sentiment that the type method can cover any situation involved (see also Art. 70, Prop. A).

Article 72

Prop. A(35 - Hawksworth & Sutton, Taxon 23: 568) - Add the following sentence to the Note: "In cases where the name or epithet of a fungus is illegitimate because it was piaced in a genus typified by a state other than that represented by the nomenclatural type of the name or epithet, new combinations published after I Jan. 1967 (imperfect states in perfect state genera) or I Jan. 1976 (perfect states in imperfect state genera) are treated as not validly published either as new combinations or new names (see Art. 59)."

Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal is to be referred to the Committee for Fungi and Lichens.

Article 73

Prop. A (22 - Nicolson & Brooks, Taxon 23: z75) - Replace paragraph 6 ["The use of a wrong connecting vowel..."] as follows: "The use of an incorrect compounding form in an epithet is treated as an orthographic error (see Rec. 73G)."

Prop. B (30 - Nicolson, Taxon 23: 60o) - Replace paragraph 7 as follows: "The wrong use of the terminations, for example -i, -ii, -ae, -iae, -anus, and -ianus, mentioned in Rec. 73C (b-e), is treated as an orthographic error to be corrected."

Prop. C (43 - Jansonius, Taxon 23: 658) - Delete paragraph 6 ["The use of a wrong connecting vowel.. ."].

Prop. D (44 - Crundwell, Taxon 23: 661) - In paragraph 6, line 2, after "connecting vowel" add the words "or the use of a hyphen with or in the place of a connecting vowel".

Prop. E (96 - Raven, Fosberg, Merxmiiller, Shetler, & Thomas, Taxon 23: 832) - Replace Note i as follows: "The words 'original spelling' in this Article mean the spelling employed when the name was first validly published (see Art. 21). They do not refer to the misuse of an initial capital or small letter, this being a matter of typography (see Art. 21 and Art. 73, Note 3)." Add the following paragraph at the end of the Article: "The use of an initial capital letter for an epithet in specific or infraspecific rank is regarded as a typographical error."

Prop. F (ioi - Nicolson, Taxon 23: 849) - Delete paragraph [3: "The letters i and v are to be changed...] and its examples. - - Prop. G (io2 Nicolson, Taxon 23: 850) Insert a new paragraph: "If the letter v is used as a vowel in an original spelling of a pre-i8oo name or epithet, substitute the letter u (Uffenbachia, not Vffenbachia Fabricius). When alternative typographies of a name or epithet exist in the original publication and involve choice between the letters i/j or u/v, accept the typography with i or u before a consonant or semivowel and j or v before a vowel (Taraxacum Zinn, not Taraxacvm Zinn; Curculigo Gaertner, not Cvrcvligo Gaertner; Saurauja Willdenow, not Saurauia Willdenow; Jungia Gaertner, not lungia Gaertner nor Jvngia Gaertner." Prop. H (140 - VWczy, Taxon 23: 873) - Strike out the statement concerning Fagus sylvatica L., which should be handled as Recommendation 73J as follows: "For the sake of uniformity in writing of some epithets, botanists should agree on the following suggestions:

FEBRUARY 1975 227

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions silvestris and silvaticus, not sylvestris and sylvaticus (including Linn6's epithets too), e.g. Fagus silvatica L. littoralis, not litoralis, e.g. Corrigiola littoralis L. laevis, not levis, e.g. Aster laevis L. caeruleus, not coeruleus, e.g. Passiflora caerulea L. "When such epithets are used in the citation of synonym, the original writing should be applied."

Comments Rapporteurs

Prop. A would accomplish two things: (i) remove "name or" before "an epithet" on the grounds that names (that is, above the specific level) are dealt with, when necessary, by conservation; and (2) emphasize compounding forms rather than simply "connecting vowels" - as carefully explained in connection with Rec. 73G, Prop. A, on which this proposal largely depends. Prop. B can be referred to the Editorial Committee for action to accord with Rec. 73C, Prop. A. Prop. C arose out of experience with names of fossil plants but is worded so as to remove for all plants the obligation to correct erroneous connecting vowels (or compounding forms of Prop. A), on the grounds that one cannot always tell whether such "wrong use" results from true error or a deliberate orthography in accord with Arts. 20o and 23 which allow names and epithets to be composed arbitrarily. The intent of Art. 73, however, is to rule in this paragraph (and others) that all such use is to be treated as if it were orthographic error in the interest of some level of uniformity and consistent grammatical correctness. Prop. D can be considered independently of Prop. A and the wording brought into conformity with Prop. A, if accepted, by the Editorial Committee. This proposal would add to the list of corrections to be made any use of a hyphen except where explicitly provided for in Art. 20 (connecting words in a generic name) and Art. 23 (words or transcribed symbols in a specific epithet). This ruling would indeed avoid requiring botanists to remember the distinction between Carex pseudo-cyperus and Panicum pseudopubescens, the correct Iris pseudacorus (not pseudo-acorus), and countless similar such epithets where at present we are obligated to accept the original spelling. If Prop. A is accepted, application of Prop. D to genera would presumably be likewise omitted, leaving conservation as the way to alter a generic name originally published with a hyphen (e.g. Pseudo-elephantopus Rohr). Prop. E. The added paragraph (in combination with Rec. 73F, Prop. A, q.v.) would require that all specific and infraspecific epithets be written with a small letter, and an opinion from botanists generally, via the mail vote, will be useful for guidance on this matter of uniform style (in accord with the Zoological Code (Art. 28) and Bacteriological Code (Rule 59)). (The proposed rewording of Note I can be considered by the Editorial Committee, although it is not clear why "first" should be inserted since a name is validly published only once, what "misuse of a...small letter" would be under the circumstances, or to what the citation of "Art. 73, Note 3" refers.) Prop. F would simply eliminate a statement including, as pointed out in the argument, some bad examples (Taraxacum and Saurauia involve choosing between alternative spellings which appear in the original publication - not correcting a single spelling). Prop. G would provide a new text on the same subject. Prop. G would replace the paragraph on j/i and v/u with an improved wording (see Prop. F) and mention of a date after which "it becomes difficult to argue that an author was indifferent to the use of v as a vowel," for the point of the provision is largely to clarify usage when early Latin alphabets made no typographic distinction in the pairs of letters concerned. This carefully researched proposal is fully explained in Taxon 23: 843-851 (November 1974). Prop. H represents another proposed step toward orthographic uniformity. It is more

228 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions far-reaching than most proposals on the subject, dealing with a much greater diversity of cases than alternative letters, a hyphen or not, a capital letter or not. A list of standardized spellings could be extended indefinitely [e.g. caespitosus or Linnaeus' consistent cespitosus?]. The argument appears to contain a misunderstanding when it implies that the epithets of Linnaeus are a special exception. The present requirement (with specified exceptions) is to accept the original spelling of any author who deliberately uses it. Linnaeus is the only example cited for "sylvatica" but is not the only author to be followed (cf., e.g., Myosotis sylvatica Hoffm.).

Recommendation 73C - - Prop. A (31 Nicolson, Taxon 23: 56o) Replace the first two lines, paragraphs (a) through (d), and the last two paragraphs with the following: "Modern (for Greek and Latin names see paragraph f.) personal names may be automatically latinized and used to form specific and infraspecific epithets in the following manner (note hyphens are used in examples only to set off the total appropriate inflections): "(a) In forming new epithets based on personal names the original spelling of the personal name should not be modified unless it contains letters foreign to Latin plant names or diacritic signs (see Art. 73). "(d) If the personal name ends in a vowel or -er, substantive epithets are formed by adding the genitive inflection appropriate to the gender and number of the person(s) honored (e.g., glaziou-i for Mr. Glaziou, lace-ae for Mrs. Lace, hooker-orum for Mr. & Mrs. Hooker), except when the name ends in -a when adding -e (singular) or -rum (plural) is appropriate (e.g., triana-e for Mr. Triana). "(c) If the personal name ends in a consonant (except -er), substantive epithets are formed by adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus the genitive inflection appropriate to the gender and number of the person(s) honored (e.g., lecard-ii for Mr. Lecard, wilson-iae for Ms. Wilson, verlot-iorum for the Verlot brothers, braun-iarum for the Braun sisters). "(d) If the personal name ends in a vowel, adjectival epithets are formed by adding -an- plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g., Cyperus heyne-anus for Heyne, Vanda lindley-ana for Lindley, Aspidium bertero-anum for Bertero), except when the personal name ends in -a when -n- plus the appropriate inflection is added, e.g., balansa-nus (m.), balansa-na (f.), and balansa-num (n) for Balansa. "(e) If the personal name ends in a consonant (including -er), adjectival epithets are formed by adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus -an- (stem of adjectival suffix) plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g., Ranunculus spruner-ianus for Spruner, Rosa webb-iana for Webb, Desmodium griffith- ianum for Griffith). "(f) If a personal name is already in Greek or Latin the appropriate Latin genitive to form substantive epithets should be used (e.g., alexandri from Alexander, augusti from Augustus, linnaei from Linnaeus, martii from Martius, beatricis from Beatrix, hectoris from Hector.) Treating modern names as if they were in Third Declension should be avoided, e.g., munronis from Munro, richardsonis from Richardson." B - - Prop. (32 Nicolson, Taxon 23: 561) Reletter present paragraphs from (e) through (i) to (g) through (k). Comments Rapporteurs

Prop. A is another thoroughly researched proposal on orthography, fully explained in Taxon 23: 549-561 (Aug. 1974), and is designed to give clearer guidance and better organization to the subject of stems and terminations. (It would also delete the Verbena hasslerana example - see Taxon 23: 556 for explanation.) While the matter is only a recommendation, the maximum clarity is nevertheless to be sought. Prop. B is to be referred to the Editorial Committee.

FEBRUARY 1975 229

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Recommendation 73F - Prop. A (96 pro parte Raven, Fosberg, Merxmiiller, Shetler, & Thomas, Taxon 23: 832) - Delete the Recommendation. Comments Rapporteurs: This proposal, in conjunction with Art. 73, Prop. E, would remove the option for those botanists who wish to do so, to use initial capital letters for specific and infraspecific epithets in certain authorized cases. There have long been arguments pro and con on this subject, the trend being toward reducing use of capitals in the interest of reducing time-consuming research when there is doubt about the status of an epithet. (Those who choose to use capitals may not always remember, e.g., that it must be Lobelia Cardinalis, but Mimulus cardinalis.)

Recommendation 73G

Prop. A (21 - Nicolson & Brooks, Taxon 23: 174) - Substitute as follows: "A compound name or an epithet which combines elements derived from two or more Greek or Latin words should be formed, as far as practicable, in accordance with classical usage. This may be stated as follows: "i. In a true compound, a noun or adjective in non-final position appears as a stem without case ending with one of the following modifications to derive its compounding forms: "(a) If the stem ends in a consonant, a connecting vowel (-o- in Greek, -i- in Latin) is inserted before a following consonant (Leont-o-podium, stem leont-; cord-i-folius, stem cord-). Before a following vowel the connecting vowel is omitted (Leont-ice; cord-atus). "(b) If the stem ends, or appears to end, in the vowels -a, -e, -o, or -u, this stem vowel is normally elided before a following consonant. For Greek words, -o is substituted (Acantho-panax, stem acantha-; Limno-charis, stem limne-; Cyclo-sorus, stem cyclo-). For Latin words, -i is substituted (magnolii-florus, stem magnolia-; lilii-florus, stem lilio-; querci-folius, stem quercu-), except for the rare e-stems (speci-men, stem specie-). Before a following vowel the above stem vowels are elided and the Greek -o and Latin -i are not substituted (Acanth-ella, Limn-anthes, Cycl-anthus, Magnoli-aceae, Lili-ales, querc- etum). In certain words the stem vowel may be preserved; this can only be determined by comparison with existing classical compounds (Coryne-phorus, stem coryne-; re-culus, re-al, stem re-). "(c) If the stem ends in the vowels -y, -i, or the rare diphthongs -au, -eu, or -ou, the stem vowel is normally preserved (Pachy-phytum, Pachy-anthus, stem pachy-; Lysi- machia, Lisi-anthus, stem lysi-; Nau-clea, stem nau-). For certain stems, such as those of Greek nouns ending in -y or sometimes -i, the connecting vowel -o- is added before a consonant (Ichthy-o-there, stem ichtby-; Ophi-o-glossum, stem ophi-). The Greek diphthong stem endings are normally preserved but often undergo contraction or vowel change (Bo-opis, stem bou-; oreo-comus, stem oreu; Basilo-xylon, stem basileu-). "2. A pseudocompound is a noun or adjectival phrase treated as if it were a single compound word. In a pseudocompound, a noun or adjective in a non-final position appears as a word with a case ending, not as a modified stem. Examples are: nidus-avis (nest of bird), Myos-otis (ear of mouse), cannae-folius (leaf of canna), albo-marginatus (margined with white), etc. Some irregular forms have been developed on the analogy of pseudocompounds, such as atro-purpureus (purple with black, where the correct phrasing would have been purpureus cum atro). Others have been deliberately introduced to reveal etymological differences when different word elements have the same compounding forms, such as tubi- from tube (tubus, tubi, stem tubo-) or from trumpet (tuba, tubae, stem tuba-) where tubaeflorus can only mean trumpet-flowered; also carici- is the compounding form from both papaya (carica, caricae, stem carica-) and sedge (carex, caricis, stem caric-) where caricaefolius can only mean papaya-leaved. The latter use of genitive singular of First Declension for pseudocompounding is an error to be corrected unless it makes an etymological distinction. "3. Some common irregular forms in compounds are not derived from a noun or adjective stem, but have been developed specifically for compounding. Examples are hydro- and hydr- (Hydro-phyllum) where the regular noun stem is hydat-; calli- (Calli-

230 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions stemon) where the regular adjective stem is calo-; and meli- (Meli-osma, Meli-lotus) where the regular noun stem is melit-." Comments Rapporteurs:This proposal is the third major rewording of an orthographic provision in the Code, again based on thorough research, fully reported in Taxon (23: 163-177. Feb. 1974). This proposal incorporates most of the present examples, and seems to improve the quality and thoroughness of explanation, in accord with good practice. It is designed for "busy taxonomists" who, in any event, will recognize that the matter is only a Recommendation.

Recommendation 74A

Prop. A (52, Rauschert, Taxon 23: 672) - Add to section (4): "Ebenso sollten Gattungs- namen, die auf das griechische Suffix -ites enden, ohne Riicksicht darauf, welches Geschlecht der urspriinglicheAutor ihnen zuschreibt, als Maskulina behandelt werden." - - Prop. B (141 Vdczy, Taxon 23: 874) Replace as follows: "Generic plant names (simple or compound, vernacular or new creations), preferably of Greek or Latin origin, should be in Latin or have latinized endings and their gender should be treated grammatically in accordance with the rules of the Latin language. Generally, it is desirable for generic names of plants to have feminine endings. "In the establishmentof the correct grammatical gender of plant names of Greek or Latin origin, one should have in view the following principles: . . ." [See Taxon 23: 874- 875 for the very thorough explication of principles and examples proposed.] Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A. The Committee for Fossil Plants should state an opinion, since most although not all names involved are for fossils. Prop. B presents a very much expanded statement on determining the gender of generic names, with the intention of maintaining classical usage and making it easier to establish the correct gender within the spirit of the present Recommendation.Numerous examples are offered and they should be noted by the Editorial Committee.

Appendix I Prop. A (70 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 682)- Add, in a suitable position: "A name or epithet based on a graft-chimaerais not validly published, regardless of whether or not this was known to the author."

Prop. B (76 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 684) - Make the following essentially editorial alterations: (a) In Rec. H. 3A, alter the part after the comma to read: "greater precision may be achieved by the use of a formula incorporatingthe names of the infraspecific taxa than by the use of a collective name." (b) In Art. H. 6, if the existing example is retained, add multiplication sign before davimottiae. (c) In Art. H. 7, examples to paragraph 3, for "xGymnacamptis"read "xGymnana- camptis" (d) In Art. H. 7, delete "a person eminent as". (e) In Art. H. 7, examples to paragraph 7, for "xSophrolaeliacattleya" read "xSophrolae- liocattleya". (f) In Art. H. 7, Note, change the example. (g) In Art. H. 9, unless Prop. 67 is accepted, add after the first line: "the epithet of a hybrid with the rank of". (h) In Art. H. 9, unless Prop. 67 is accepted, in line 3 for "(Art. H. 8)" read "(Art. H. 7)". (i) In Art. H. 9, for "hybrid"read "hybrid group". (j) In Art. 23, section (4), if Prop. 60 is accepted, for "Art. H. 4" read "Art. H. 5". (k) In Art. 5o, place multiplication sign in the final example in its correct position.

FEBRUARY 1975 231

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions In (1) Art. So, final example, alter the part after the first line to read: "as a variety of an interspecific hybrid; under present rules it ought to have been published as a nothomorph, and if it is still regarded as such, the name is cited as Carya xlaneyi nm. chateaugayensis Sarg. (pro var.)." Comments Rapporteurs Proposals on hybrids are to be considered by the Committee for Hybrids, but since most of the proposals at this time have already been considered by that Committee although not necessarily endorsed or rejected, the Rapporteurs offer comments as for other proposals. Prop. A would establish a special category of rejection, not entirely unlike Arts. 70 and 71, "to insure against any interference in botanical nomenclatureby the names of these objects." Any such interference is, however, highly unlikely for regardless of how any validly published name for a graft-chimaera is typified, the type element presumably already has a valid name. Prop. B is a package of editorial suggestionsto be referredto the Editorial Committee. Article H. 4

Prop. A (56 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 677) - Alter the clause between commas to read: "or with only the termination of one epithet changed". - - Prop. B (57 Yeo, Taxon 23: 677) Add to the examples: "The following names include true epithets: Acaena xanserovina Orchard (from anserinifolia and ovina), Micromeria xbenthamineolens Svent. (from benthamii and pineolens).

- - Prop. C (58 Yeo, Taxon 23: 678) Delete the first two lines and substitute: "Designationsproposed for hybrids and consisting of the epithets of the names applied to the parents, combined either in unaltered form or in altered but recognizableform, or consisting of..." Add to examples: Micromeria xbenthamineolens (from benthamii and pineolens).

Prop. D (6o - Yeo, Taxon 23: 678) - Place Art. H. 6 and Rec. H. 6A before Art. H. 4 and renumber accordingly. In Art. H. 4, line 1, delete "specific". In Art. H. 5, for "named interspecifichybrid" read "hybrid designated by an epithet". Comments Rapporteurs Props. A, B, and D should be referred to the Editorial Committee for appropriateaction in accord with any other proposals accepted. Prop. C is a slight rephrasingof the Article to emphasize that designations for hybrids based on the epithets of the parental names are to be consideredcondensed formulae and not true epithets. (See also proposed new Rec. H. 4A.) New Recommendation H. 4A - Prop. A (59 Yeo, Taxon 23: 678) - "In forming epithets for hybrids, botanists should avoid combining parts of the epithets of the parents." CommentsRapporteurs: This proposal is intended for considerationif Art. H. 4, Prop. C is not acceptable. It offers advice not to form epithets for true species in the same form as a condensed formula.

Article H. 6

Prop. A (6i - Yeo, Taxon 23: 678) - Add: "Epithets of hybrids between infraspecific taxa are subject to the same rules as those of non-hybrid infraspecific taxa (see Arts. 24, 40, and 5o)."

232 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Prop. B (62 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 678) - Delete the example and substitute: "Polypodium vulgare subsp. xmantoniae Rothm. ex Schidlay (= P. vulgare subsp. prionodes x subsp. vulgare)."

Prop. C (91 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 831) - Substitute "subsp." for "var." three times in the example. Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A is intended to provide a statement parallel to the second sentence of Art. H. 3, pertaining to species. Props. B and C can be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Article H. 7

Prop. A (63 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 679) - In paragraphs 3 and 7, for "combining the names" read "combiningthe correct/legitimatenames". Add to Examples: xAmarcrinum Coutts (Amaryllis x Crinum).

Prop. B (64 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 679) - Elevate the Note to the status of a paragraph.

Prop. C (65 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 679) - Add a new Note: "The collective epithet of an intergeneric hybrid is subject to the same rules as that of an interspecific hybrid (Arts. H. 3, H. 4, and H. 5), except for the position of the multiplication sign (x). A collective epithet in modern language is allowable only under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (see ICNCP, Art. I8)." Prop. D (66 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 679) - In paragraph 3, for "is formed" read "is a condensed formula formed". In paragraph 6, add "Such a name is regarded as a condensed formula."

Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A. The parent genera may have more than one correct name, depending on taxonomic circumscriptionor position (e.g., Sorbus vs. Pyrus) and the proposal intends to make clear that the "generic name" must change if for nomenclaturalor taxonomic reasons the names accepted for the parent genera change and would prohibit use of names based on incorrect parental names - often a matter of taxonomic opinion. "Legitimate"is offered as an alternative if "correct" (in the sense of Art. i1) is felt to be ambiguous,and hence two choices are provided on the mail ballot. Prop. B refers to an editorial lapsus; "Note" was intended to have been removed by the Editorial Committee.

Prop. C. The Note would express existing practice not otherwise explicitly spelled out. Prop. D would make clear in the simplest way the status of such "generic names," for formulae (condensed or otherwise) have no independent standing in such matters as typification.

Article H. 8

Prop. A (67 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 680) - Delete Arts. H. 8 and H. 9 and substitute a new Art. H. 8: "In order to be validly published, the name of a hybrid with the rank of genus, or the epithet of a hybrid with the rank of subdivision of a genus, must fulfil the conditions contained in Art. 32, para. i(i) and be accompaniedby a statement of the names of the parent genera or subdivisions of a genus. "Examples: [those from Art. H. 9 of the Seattle Code]. "Note: No description or diagnosis is necessary, whether in Latin or any other language."

FEBRUARY 1975 233

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "Such names and epithets are condensed formulae or, if they end in -ara, are treated as equivalent to condensed formulae, their application being determined by the stated parentage. The names and epithets are applicable only to plants which are accepted taxonomically as derived from the genera or subdivisionsof genera named. "Examples: [that from Art. H. 8 of the Seattle Code, plus] If Euanthe is recognized as a distinct genus, hybrids simultaneouslyinvolving its only species, E. sanderana, and the three genera Arachnis, Renanthera, and Vanda, must be placed in xCogniauxara; if on the other hand, E. sanderana is included in Vanda, the same hybrids are placed in xHolttumara (Arachnis x Renanthera x Vanda)."

Prop. B (68 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 68o) - Make the last sentence of the examples a Note and for "Hordeum (s. str.)" read "Hordeum (s. str., see example above)." Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A combines existing Arts. H. 8 and H. 9 to give more prominence to the concept of hybrid "generic"names as condensedformulae, a concept which can be easily covered in Art. H. 7 (see Prop. D), Arts. H. 8 and H. 9 becoming subordinateto that basic idea. Reference to Art. 32, para. I (i) only calls attention to the definition of effective publication in Art. 29, and it would be more direct merely to state here in H. 8 "must be effectively published" if that is desirable. Arts. H. 8 and H. 9 might indeed be combined, however, and additional examples cited, so that this proposal can be referred to the Editorial Committee.

Prop. B is intended to sanction the position that names for hybrid-genera and regular genera compete for priority. If names of hybrid-genera are condensed formulae (Art. H. 7, Prop. D), they have no more standing than a full formula except, as the Hordelymus example illustrates, in the operation of homonymy. Appendix I might well deal more clearly with the competitive status of "generic names" for hybrids between two or more genera in matters of priority and homonymy. The name of a hybrid with the rank of genus or subdivision of a genus needs only a statement of parentage (Prop. A would add effective publication). Should such names compete with those for non- hybrid taxa, published with Latin diagnosis, indication of type, etc.?

Article H. 9

Prop. A (69 - Yeo, Taxon 23: 681) - Add: "The 'generic name' of an intergeneric hybrid, or the epithet of a hybrid between subdivisions of a genus, is illegitimate and must be rejected if any of the generic or generic subdivisional names of which it is composed is illegitimate or not validly published. "Examples: Belladonna Sweet is a nomenclaturalsynonym of Amaryllis L. The name xCrindonna Ragioneri for hybrids between Amaryllis and Crinum L. is therefore illegitimate. When the correct name for LeucorchisE. Mey. was found to be PseudorchisSeg., a new name (xPseuditella P. F. Hunt) became necessaryto replace xLeucotella Schltr., as the name for the hybrid with Nigritella Rchb. "A name which is not formed in accordance with the provisions of Art. H. 7 is illegitimate and must be rejected. "Examples:The name xMaltea Boivin, for hybrids between Phippsia and Puccinellia, is illegitimate, as is xEucodonopsisvan Houtte for hybrids between AchimenesPers. and SmithianthaKuntze (which should be called xAchimenanthaH. E. Moore)." CommentsRapporteurs: This proposal would become the entire Art. H. 9 if the existing H. 8 and H. 9 are combined. It intends to treat names in conflict with Art. H.7, especially as modified if H. 7, Prop. A is accepted (q.v.), as illegitimate.

Article H. 10

Prop. A (92 - Raven, Shetler, & Taylor, Taxon 23: 831) - Substitute "subspecies" for "variety" in line 9.

234 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Prop. B (I1i - Lebeau, Taxon 23: 880) - Replace the first four paragraphs [including Examples] with the following new text: "When different hybrid forms or groups of hybrids forms derived from the same parent species (including their infraspecific taxa) are treated as belonging to a collective hybrid taxon of rank equivalent to species, they are classed under the binary name applied to this taxon (see Art. H. 3) like infraspecific taxa under the binary name of the species. The hybrid forms are termed nothomorphs and the group of hybrid forms are termed subhybrids;when it is desirable, a nothomorphor a subhybridmay be designated by an epithet preceded by its binary name and the term nothomorpha(abbreviated as nm.) or the term subbybrida (abbreviatedas subhybr.). "In the hierarchy of ranks, nothomorph is equivalent to variety, and subhybrid is equivalent to subspecies(see also Art. So). "Examples: Mentha xpiperita L. (pro sp.) subhybr. piperita [= M. aquatica L. x spicata L. subsp. glabrata (Lej. et Court.) Lebeau] nm. piperita et nm. piperoides Malinv. (pro var.) et nm. crispa Koch (pro var.); M. xpiperita subhybr. nepetoides (Lej.) Lebeau (= M. aquatica x spicata subsp. spicata); Mentha xvillosa Huds. (pro sp.) subhybr. villosa (= M. spicata L. subsp. spicata x suaveolens Ehrh.) nm. villosa, et nm. nemorosa (Willd.) Briq. (pro var.), et nm. gratissima (Web.) Rouy (pro var.), et nm. alopecuroides (Hull) Briq. (pro var.); M. xvillosa subhybr.lamyi Malinv.) Lebeau [= M. spicata subsp. glabrata (Lej. et Court.) Lebeau xsuaveolens] nm. lamyi et nm. cordifolia (Opiz) Lebeau."

Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A will be dealt with by the Editorial Committee in accord with action on Art. 4, Prop. B. Prop. B. Unlike the other substantive proposals to amend Appendix I, this one does not already derive from any consideration by the Committee for Hybrids and should first of all be referred to that Committee.

Appendix II

Prop. A (- Paclt, Taxon 20: 822) - Delete from the list of Nomina Familiarum Con- servanda the variants Greyia/Greyiaceae, Saurauia/Saurauiaceae, and Najas/Najadaceae. Instead of these, the variants Greyja/Greyjaceae, Saurauja/Sauraujaceae, and Naias (Naias)/Naidaceae (Naidaceae) should be put on the list.

Prop. B (iy - Rauschert, Taxon 21: 719) - Add under Asteraceae: "Note. If this family is united with Cichoriaceae A. L. de Jussieu, Gen. 168. Jul-Aug 1789 ('Cichoraceae'), the name Asteraceae (Nom alt.: Compositae) must be used." Add under Cichoriaceae: "Note. If this family is united with Asteraceae Dumortier, Commentat. 55. 1822 ('Astereae') (Nom. alt.: Compositae), the name Cichoriaceae is rejected in favour of Asteraceae (Nom. Alt.: Compositae)." Add under Compositae: "Note. If this family is united with Cichoriaceae A. L. de Jussieu, Gen. 168. Jul-Aug 1789 ('Cichoraceae'), the name Compositae (Nom. alt.: Asteraceae) must be used." (withdrawn, see Taxon 23: 674. 1974). - Prop. C (18 Rauschert, Taxon 21: 720) - Alter the name Circaeasteraceae to Circaeastraceae. - - Prop. D (53 Rauschert, Taxon 23: 673) Change the third sentence of the text as follows: "When two listed names compete, the earlier must be retained, unless the contrary is indicated. When an alternative name authorized in Art. 18 Note 3 competes another name listed in App. II, the latter must be rejected in favour of the alternative name."

Comments Rapporteurs: All proposals are to be considered by the Subcommittee for Family Names.

FEBRUARY 1975 235J

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Appendix III

Prop. A (142 - Viczy, Taxon 23: 876) - Amend 468b: "Schoenoplectus (Rchb. I846 pro sect.) Palla... I888." Amend IIi9: "MaianthemumWeb. in Wigg. Prim. Fl. Hols. 1780 ..." CommentsRapporteurs: Any changes in the listings in Appendix III are to be considered by the Special Committees,in the case of Prop. A, the Committee for Spermatophyta.

GeneralProposals

Prop. A (96a - Thomas, Taxon 23: 833) - A proposal to require that descriptions of all new taxa, new combinations, and new names of organisms covered by the Inter- national Code of Botanical Nomenclature be published in a journal founded for this purpose and published by the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.

Prop. B (117 - Brummitt, Taxon 23: 867) - The Editorial Committee is requested to number or letter paragraphs within Articles, either in all Articles or at least in the longer ones.

Prop. C (127 - Vczy, Taxon 23: 872) - Proposal for a new title: (a) InternationalCode of GeneralBotanical Nomenclature, or (b) InternationalCode of FundamentalBotanical Nomenclature, or (c) InternationalCode of IdiotaxonomicalNomenclature of Plants. - - Prop. D (i39 Viczy,Taxon 23: 873) Add a footnote on the heading of Section d: "General Recommendations on Citation':" to read: "'See Guide to the Citation of Botanical Literature (p. 77)."

Comments Rapporteurs Prop. A would place an enormous burden of responsibility on a new journal which of necessity would deal with names in all groups of plants from all parts of the world. The new Bacteriological Code requires for valid publication that a new name or combination be published in the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology - or be announced there if published previously elsewhere (Rule 27). However, obviously the amount of material involved in dealing with all plants is of an entirely different order of magnitude. Prop. B may be referred to the Editorial Committee, which would doubtless find such designations useful itself if they can be devised without confusion contra existing occasional designations. Prop. C gives three possible new names for the Code. We do not see the need for a change, but the three possibilities are indicated separately on the mail ballot. Prop. D can be referred to the Editorial Committee.

GENERAL PROPOSALS ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF BACTERIA AND KINGDOMS (E. G. Voss)

At the First International Congress for Bacteriology, held in Jerusalemin 1973, a new InternationalCode of Nomenclature of Bacteria was accepted with only "small changes" to the draft published in Internatl. Jour. Syst. Bact. 23: 83-lo8 (I973). This is to be published in book form, and is a fully developed Code which, however, differs from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature in numerous aspects of detail besides those few already specifically mentioned in our Code. In view of the recent adoption of a new and adequate Code for Bacteria, which has been studied by the vice rapporteur, he puts forth the following proposal to instruct the Editorial Committee to bring harmony to the existence of the two Codes. The Botanical Code should now remove

236 TAXONVOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions the last vestiges of attempting to cover Bacteria - and yet make clear that it covers all organisms treated as plants (excepting Bacteria). Furthermore,it seems unwise for the Botanical Code to rule, in effect, that all plants must be placed in a single kingdom ("the plant kingdom"), since taxonomists should have the option, if they wish, to recognize more than one kingdom of plants (names in all of which are nevertheless governed by our Code). Prop.E. Instruct the Editorial Committee to make clear that Bacteria are covered by a different Code, including the following principal matters: Principle I. Add a footnote: ':For nomenclatural purposes, the word "plants" in this Code does not include the Bacteria except where expressedindicated. Rec. 7A: Delete the second sentence, referring to living types. Art. 9: In the third paragraph, delete "the Bacteria excepted"; add a Note: "The In- ternational Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria provides for living type cultures." Art. I3: Delete paragraph 'i' and add a new Note: "Names of Bacteria are governed by the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria, which establishes a starting-point date of i January I980." Art. 36: Delete "bacteria,"in the first line. Division III (p. 69): Delete "Committeefor Bacteria". Prop. F. Reword Article 65 as follows, and instruct Editorial Committee to avoid implications (as in Art. 4) that all plants must be placed in a single kingdom: "If a taxon is treated as belonging to a group of plants, any names previously published for it when treated as not belonging to such a group (e.g., as an animal or bacterium)are to be taken into account, except for purposes of homonymy, if they were validly published under Articles 32-45 of this Code. A name is to be rejected as illegitimate if it becomes a homonym of a name governed by this Code at the time the taxon to which it applies is treated as belonging to a group of plants. "If a taxon once treated as belonging to a group of plants is subsequentlytreated as not belonging to such a group, its name or names retain their status in botanical nomenclaturefor purposes of homonymy. "Except as stated above, names applied to organisms not treated as plants do not enter into considerationsof homonymy."

FEBRUARY 1975 237

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions W A oo Appendix

REPORT ON THE STATUS OF NOMINA CONSERVANDA PROPOSITA

NOTE: The previous comprehensive report on Nomina Conservanda Proposita appeared as Appendix D of the Seattle Synopsis (Reg. Veg. 6o: Ioo-Io6. 1969) and listed proposals through No. 255. For a summary of action on those proposals now accepted in the Seattle Code, see the Seattle Report (Reg. Veg. 81: 125. 1972) and paragraph 2 of the subsequent General Committee Report (Taxon 22: 153. 1973)- Proposals on which Committee or Congress action has not yet been completed are again listed here, as are all new proposals (since No. 255). One of these (No. 260) was accepted by the Seattle Congress and by the General Committee and no further action is required. A plus sign (+) indicates acceptance of a proposal or recommendation for conservation; a minus sign (-) indicates rejection. In the columns for "References," numbers below 25 indicate volumes of Taxon; higher numbers indicate volumes of Regnum Vegetabile. Action reported but not yet published is listed by + or - without a reference. An asterisk (*) indicates names approved by the General Committee prior to publication of the Seattle Code and hence already included therein with an asterisk indicating that they may be used, under Art. I5, pending final decision by the Leningrad Congress.

NOMINA FAMILIARUM CONSERVANDA PROPOSITA

No. Group Nom. Cons. Prop. Prop. by Orig. References Sp. Comm. Gen. Comm. Lich. Usneaceae Eschw. Hawksworth 646 647 -24: (3Ii) I9: -23: 244 (-) Sp. Greyiaceae Hutchinson [emend.] Paclt 20: 822 -24: 250 (-) Sp. Saurauiaceae J. G. Agardh [emend.] Pac.lt zo: 822 -24: 250 (-) Sp. Najadaceae A. L. Jussieu [emend.] Paclt 20: 822 -24: 250 Bry. Porellaceae Cavers Grolle 21: 708 +24: 248 0 (343) ( -) Sp. Asteraceae Dumortier [emend.] Rauschert 21: 719 -24: 250 z (- ) Sp. Cichoriaceae A. L. Jussieu [emend.] Rauschert 21: 719 -24: 250 ( -) Sp. Compositae Giseke [emend.] Rauschert 21: 719 -24: 250 0M Circaeasteraceae Hutchinson Rauschert 21: 720 CN (- ) Sp. (359) Bry. Lejeuneaceae Casares-Gil Grolle 22: 504 +24: 248 Bescherelle & 22: (364) Bry. Bryoxiphiaceae Crosby Margadant 5o8 +24: 249 (365) Bry. Eustichiaceae Brotherus Crosby & Margadant 22: 5o8 +24: 249

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions topriM NOMINA GENERICA CONSERVANDA PROPOSITA References No. Group Nom. Cons. Prop. Prop. by Orig. Sp. Comm.

(io6) Fungi Monilia Bonorden Donk 12: 271 +23:419 (IIo) Fungi Phloeospora Wallr. Donk 34: Io (123) Fungi Collybia (Fr.) Staude Donk 34: 33 (136) Fungi Tomentella Pat. [corr.] Weresub 34: 45 +23: 647 (188) Lich. Cetraria Ach. Culberson 15:316 (201) Algae Cyclococcolithus Kamptner Hay I6: 240 ":(2o8) Sp. Chamaedaphne Moench Ingram i6: 248 +19: 290 Waterhouse 88 (214) Fungi Pythium Pringsh. i7: +23: 419 (220) Sp. Dolichos L. [see also Prop. 304] Verdcourt 17: 172 -19: 291 (227) Fungi Sphaerotheca Lev. Deighton 17: 234 +23: 419 (228) Fungi Helotium Fries Svrcek et al. 17: 235 -23: 419 (231) Algae Hormidium Klebs Mattox 17: 442 (232) Bry. Daltonia Brid. Crosby 17: 443 (240) Fungi Stilbella Lindau Benjamin 17: 524 +23: 420 (241) Bry. Neckera Hedw. [emend.] Crosby 17: 594 -22: I58 (242) Bry. Pilotrichum Brid. Crosby 17: 595 -22: i58 (243) Sp. Forrestia A. Rich. Babu & Dutta 17: 597 -19: 291 (244) Sp. Haematocarpus Miers Balakrishnan 17: 597 -19: 291 (245) Sp. Pterolobium R. Br. [emend.] Brummitt 17: 598 -19: 291 *(246) Sp. Doona Thwaites Balakrishnan 17: 600 +i9: 292 :(247) Sp. Metrosideros Gaertn. [emend.] Dawson 17: 600 +19: 292 ":(248) Sp. Merremia Hall. f. Manitz 17: 6oi +19: 292 *(251) Sp. Amomum Roxb. Burtt & Smith 17: 730 +19: 293 Swartz *(252) Sp. Brosimum [addendum] Berg I7: 731 +19: 293 (253) Sp. Bosqueia Baillon Capuron 17: 731 -19: 293 :(254) Sp. Codonanthe (Mart.) Hanstein [corr.] Morton & Denham 17: 732 +19:293 :(255) Sp. Brickellia Ell. [addendum] Shinners& McVaugh 17: 732 + 9: 293 *(256) Sp. Peristylus Bl. Hunt 18: 339 + 19: 814 '(257) Sp. Retama Raf. Gruenberg-Fertig 18:339 +19: 814 [Corr. 19: 648] *(258) Sp. Acantholimon Boiss. Linczevski i8: 340 +20: 384

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions NOMINA GENERICA CONSERVANDA PROPOSITA 0 References No. Group Nom. Cons. Prop. Prop. by Orig. Sp. Comm. Gen. Comm.

(259) Sp. Longetia Baill. van Steenis 18: 341 -20: 385 -22:153 Coleochaete Breb. (260) Algae Papenfuss (1966) i8: 342 -8I: 123 +22: 153 (261) Sp. Bouteloua Lagasca Soderstrom 18: 342 -19: 815 -22: 153 (262) Algae Dactylococcopsis R. & F. Chodat Komairek 18: 342 Leontodon L. Vuilleumier *(263) Sp. [typ. cons.] I8: 343 +22: 153 Colocasia Schott +I9:815 '(264) Sp. Dandy I8: 464 +19: 815 +22:153 :(265) Sp. Babiana Ker-Gawler Dandy 18: 464 +20: 385 +22:153 "*(266) Sp. Brassavola R. Brown Dandy 18:465 +19: 815 +22:153 :(267) Sp. Ostrya Scopoli Dandy 18:465 +19: 815 +22: 153 ";(268) Sp. Struthanthus Martius Dandy 18:465 +19: 815 +22: 153 *(269) Sp. Heisteria N. J. Jacquin Dandy I8: 465 +19: 815 +22:153 Talinum A. L. (270) Sp. Jussieu Dandy I8: 465 -20: 385 -22: 153 *(271) Sp. Hyperbaena Bentham Dandy 18:467 +19: 816 +22:153 :(272) Sp. Aronia Medikus Dandy I8: 467 +20: 386 +22:153 (273) Sp. Hesperethusa M. J. Roemer Dandy 18: 467 -19: 816 -22: 153 :(274) Sp. Muraltia A. P. de Candolle Dandy i8: 467 +19: 816 +22:153 (275) Sp. Salacia L. Dandy 18: 468 -19:386 -22:153 *(276) Sp. Leea L. Dandy 18:468 +19: 816 +22: 153 (277) Sp. Ruyschia N. J. Jacquin Dandy I8: 468 -19: 386 -22:153 (278) Sp. Levisticum J. Hill Dandy 18: 468 +22: 154 +24: 244 "*(279) Sp. Helwingia Willd. Dandy 18: 468 +i9: 816 +22: 153 :'(28o) Sp. Premna L. Dandy 18:469 +19: 816 +22: 153 f. •:(28I) Sp. Hemimeris L. Dandy 18:469 +I9: 816 +22: I53 *(282) Sp. Calceolaria L. Dandy 18: 469 +19: 386 +22: 153 *(283) Sp. Achimenes Persoon Dandy 18:469 +19: 817 +22:153 z ":'(284) Sp. Hymenodictyon Wallich Dandy 18: 470 +19: 817 +22:153 (285) Sp. Tarenna J. Gaertner Dandy 18: 470 -19: 817 -22:153 o *'(286) Sp. Synedrella J. Gaertner Dandy 470 +19: 817 +22: 153 O i8: '(287) Sp. Cinnamomum Schaeffer Rothmaler (1944) I8:471 +20: 387 +22: 153 "*(288) Sp. Cephalotus Labillardiere Rothmaler (i944) 18: 471 +19: 817 +22: 153 *(289) Sp. Cunonia L. Rothmaler (I944) I8: 471 +19: 817 +22: 153

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions M?0 NOMINA GENERICA CONSERVANDA PROPOSITA References to No. Group Nom. Cons. Prop. Prop. by Orig. Sp. Comm. Gen. Comm. Sp. Pterocarpus N. J. Rothmaler 18: ':(290) Jacquin (1944) 471 +19: 818 +22: 153 "'(291) Sp. Kostermans Brownlowia Roxburgh (I96I) 18: 471 +20: 387 +22: 153 Sp. Melocactus Link & Otto Rothmaler '(292) (1944) I8: 472 +19: 818 +22: 153 (293) Endymion Dumortier Sp. Dandy 18:472 -19: 818 -22: I 3 *'(294) Sp. Wolffia Schleiden den Hartog I8: 591 +20: 387 +22: 153 *(295) Sp. Drimys J. R. & Forster Vink G. [typ. cons.] I8: 592 +20: 387 +22: I53 *(296) Sp. Persoon Rudd Machaerium 18: 593 +20: 388 +22: 153 "*(297) Sp. Merremia Endl. Manitz 18: 594 +19: 292 +22: Anisomeles R. Br. 153 (298) Sp. Subramanyam & Henry 18: 595 -20: 388 -22: Mosla Maxim. 153 (299) Sp. Babu & Nayar 18: 596 [withdrawn (19: 818)] Kunth (300) Sp. Iphigenia Babu & Raju 18: 733 +21: 531 +22: Micromeria Bentham 313 (301) Sp. Babu 18:733 +21: 531 Vicoa Cass. +22:313 (302) Sp. Babu & Biswas 734 -21: -22: ba 18: 532 313 (303) Flemingia W. T. Aiton Rudd +21: 4• Sp. 19: 294 532 +22: 313 (304) Dolichos L. Sp. [typ. cons.] Verdcourt 19: 297 +21: 533 Muelleriella Dusen +22:313 (305) Bry. Vitt 19: 298 +24: 248 (306) Sp. Leopoldia Parl. Garbari & Greuter 19: 334 +21: 534 +22: 313 (307) Nauclea Merr. Bakhuizen v. d. Sp. Brink 19: 480 -22: 154 -24: 244 (308) Sp. Bakhuizen v. d. Adina Salisb. Brink 19: 480 -22: 155 -24: 244 (309) Osmaronia E. L. Greene Hunt Sp. 19: 481 -21: 534 -22: 313 (310) Moschosma Reichenbach Maheshwari Sp. 19: 481 -21: 534 -22: 313 (312) Bry. Chiloscyphus Corda Grolle I9: 646 +24: 248 (313) Drynaria Smith Morton Pt. (Bory) J. 19: 647 +21: 707 +24: 244 (314) Spirodela Schleiden den Sp. Hartog 647 -21: 534 -22: 313 (315) Loudetia Steudel i9: Sp. Clayton 819 +23: 819 244 N. E. Brown I9: +24: (316) Sp. Cryophytum Ingram 19: 819 [withdrawn (21: 534)] (317) Dysophylla Bl. Bakh. v. d. Brink et Sp. al. 19: 821 -23: 819 -24: 244 (318) Sp. Pogostemon Desf. Bakh. v. d. Brink et al. 821 820 19: -23: -24: 244 (319) Fungi Uromyces (Link) Unger Laundon [emend.] 19: 948 +23:647 +24: 244 (320) Fungi Centrospora Neergaard Deighton 19: 948 Sp. Acantholimon Boiss. [emend. typ.] Linczevski +20: 21: '(321) 19: 949 384; 535 22: 153; 313

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions -a NOMINA GENERICA CONSERVANDA PROPOSITA References No. Group Nom. Cons. Prop. Prop. by Orig. Sp. Comm. Gen. Comr

(322) Sp. xTriticale Miintzing Baum 20: 644 -22: 155 -24: 244 (323) Sp. Maughania J. St. -Hil. Babu & Thothathri 20: 645 -21: 535 -22: 313 (324) Sp. Xanthophyllum Roxb. van der Meijden 20: 647 +22: 155 +24: 244 (325) Sp. Diplandra Hook. & Arn. Raven & Plitmann 20: 648 155 +22: +24: 244 (326) Fungi Dendrophoma Saccardo Rijkenberg 20: 648 -23: 647 -24:244 (327) Algae Chloromonas Gobi Silva 21: 201 (328) Sp. Lycianthes (Dun.) Hassler D'Arcy 21: 211 +22: 156 +24: 244 (329) Sp. Physocarpus (Cambessides) Rafinesque Robertson 21: 21I +22: 156 +24: 244 (330) Sp. Galax Sims [emend.] Brummitt 21: +22: 312 156 +24: 244 (331) Fungi Ceuthospora Greville Sutton 21 :322 +23: 647 +24: 244 N (332) Fungi Robillarda Saccardo Raj 21: 535 +23: 647 +24: 244 (333) Bry. Pterygophyllum Brid. Margadant et al. 21: 536 -24: 248 ba (334) Sp. Loudetia A. Br. [typ. cons.] Clayton 21: 536 -23: 820 -24:244 (335) Sp. Mesembryanthemum L. emend. Bolus Ihlenfeldt & Straka 21: 537 +23: 820 +24: 244 (336) Sp. Rhynchosia Lour. [emend.] Meikle 21: 537 +23: 821 +24: 244 (337) Sp. Zaluzianskya F. W. Schmidt Paclt 21: 539 +23: 821 +24: 244 (338) Sp. Sarmienta Ruiz & Pavon [emend.] Morton 21: 539 +23: 821 +24: 244 (339) Sp. Herpetospermum C. B. Clarke Maheshwari 21:540 -23: 821 -24:244 (340) Sp. Michauxia L'H'rit. Meikle 21: 541 +23: 822 24: 244 Canarina L. 21: 822 (34I) Sp. Meikle 542 23: +24: 244 (342) Fungi Volutella Fr. Hawksworth & Tulloch 21: 707 +23: 647 +24: 244 (344) Sp. Geanthus Valeton Burtt & Smith 21: 709 -23: 822 -24: 244 (345) Sp. Curcuma Roxb. Burtt & Smith 21: 709 -23: 823 -24: 244 (346) Sp. Alpinia Roxb. [emend.] Burtt & Smith 21: 7Io +23: 823 +24: 244 Berzelia A. T. Brongniart Powrie 21: (347) Sp. 710o -23: 823 -24: 244 C (348) Sp. Zexmenia A. Gray Becker 21: •qZ 712 -24: 245 (349) Sp. Sansevieria Thunb. [emend. typ.] Wijnands 22: +23: CM II2 823 +24: 244 (350) Sp. Sansevieria Thunb. [emend.] Marais 22:158 -23: 824 -24: 244 -P Rauschert N (35i) Sp. Digitaria Haller 22: 159 +24: 245 (352) Sp. Rhaponticum Hill Dittrich 22: 314 (353) Foss. Haplostigma Seward Paclt 22: 315

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 171 wM NOMINA GENERICA CONSERVANDA PROPOSITA References ci No. Group Prop. by Orig. Sp. Comm. Gen. Comm. (354) Foss. Cyclostigma Haughton Paclt 22: 315 (355) Foss. Cladotheca Halle Paclt 22: 316 (356) Foss. Klukia Raciborski Paclt 22:316 (357) Foss. Hymenotheca Potonie Paclt 22: 316 (358) Lich. Gymnoderma Nyl. Hawksworth & Yoshimura 22: 503 (360) Sp. Dietes Salisb. Goldblatt 22: 504 (361) Sp. Oryctanthus Eichler Kuijt 22: 505 (362) Sp. Dendrophthora Eichler Kuijt 22: 5o6 withdrawn (363) Bry. Bryoxiphium Mitten Crosby & Margadant 22: 507 +24: 249 (366) Bry. Lejeunea Libert Grolle 22: 689 +24: 249 (367) Bry. Scapania (Dum.) Dum. [emend. typ.] Grolle 22: 690 +24: 249 (368) Bry. Pleuridium Rabenh. Snider & Margadant 22: 691 +24: 249 (369) Sp. Androstachys Prain Shaw 22: 694 +24: 246 (370) Sp. Idesia Maximowicz Meikle 22: 694 +24: 252 ?P- (371) Fungi Oidium Link Weresub 22: 699 (372) Fungi Oidium (Pers.) Link Weresub 22: 699 (372a) Sp. Bobartia Ker-Gawler [emend.] Strid 23: 424 (373) Fungi Peridermium (Link) Schmidt & Kunze Hiratsuka 23: 428 [typ. cons.] (374) Algae Cystophora J. Agardh Womersley 23: 430 (375) Sp. Struthanthus Martius Kuijt 23: 431 +24: 246 (376) Sp. Brunia Lamarck Powrie 23:432 +24: 246 (377) Sp. Hoffmannseggia Cav. Brummitt & Ross 23: 433 +24: 247 (378) Sp. Acronychia J. R. & G. Forster [emend.] Hartley 23:435 +24: 247 (379) Sp. Dichosciadium Domin Eichler 23: 437 (380) Sp. Hippomarathrum Link Gruenberg-Fertig et al. 23: 438 (381) Sp. Isoglossa Orsted Brummitt 23: 440 +24: 247

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Appendix B

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

Review of reports

Publication (Taxon) Report General Committee

Spermatophyta XI 18: 477-480. 1969 22: 153. 1973 Spermatophyta XII 19: 289-294. 1970 22: 153. 1973 Spermatophyta XIII 19: 814-818. 1970 22: 153. 1973 Spermatophyta XIV 20: 384-389. 1971 22: 153. 1973 Spermatophyta XV 21: 531-535. 1972 22: 313. 1973 Spermatophyta XVI 22: 153-157. 1973 24: 244. 1975 Spermatophyta XVII 23: 819-824. 1974 24: 244. 1975 Spermatophyta XVIII 24: 244-248. 1975 at Congress Pteridophyta 21: 707. 1972 24: 244. 1975 Bryophyta (i) 22: 157-158. 1973 24: 244. 1975 Bryophyta (2) 24: 248-249. 1975 at Congress & Lichens Fungi (I) 23: 419-420. 1974 24: 244 I1975 Fungi & Lichens (2) 23: 647- 1974 Fossil Plants awaited Algae awaited Hybrids awaited Family Names 24: 249-251. 1975 at Congress

Higher taxa 23: 420-422. 1974 not required Arts. 69-71 23: 824-828. I1974 not required Stabilization 24: 171-176. 1975 not required

General Committee

In addition to the action reported in Taxon 22: 153 and 22: 313, the General Committee has approved Reports XVI and XVII of the Committee for Spermatophyta, and the reports indicated above of the Committees for Pteridophyta, Bryophyta, and Fungi and Lichens. EDWARDG. Voss, Secretary

Committee for Spermatophyta

Conservation of Generic Names, XVIII

The previous report in this series was published in Taxon 23: 819-824. Nov 1974. The present membership of the Committee is as follows:

Hiroshi Hara, Chairman (Japan) R. C. Bakhuizen van den Brink (Netherlands) R. K. Brummitt (Great Britain) G. Buchheim (U.S.A.) Hj. Eichler (Australia) F. R. Fosberg (U.S.A.) W. Greuter (Switzerland) I. A. Linczevski (U.S.S.R.) Rogers McVaugh, Secretary (U.S.A.) E. J. Mendes (Portugal) Bo Peterson (Sweden) G. Wagenitz (B.R.D.)

244 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Reports on proposals for conservation

As in previous reports, the votes for and against each proposal are shown in parentheses immediately after the names involved; the affirmative votes precede the negative. Eight affirmative votes required for a recommendation by the Committee to accept a proposal.

Proposal 348 [9216] Zexmenia A. Gray (1852), vs. Zexmenia LaLlave & Lexarza (1824), Lasianthaea DeCandolle (1836), and Telesia Rafinesque (1837) (5-7)- (Taxon 21: 712-715. 1972). The genus Zexmenia, in a sense accepted by all authors for more than a century, comprises 40-50 species; some are important elements of the flora of Mexico and Central America. It transpires that the type of the name Zexmenia, i.e. Z. serrata Ll. & Lex., belongs in fact to the genus Wedelia Jacq. (1760). It is proposed to conserve the name Zexmenia with a different type, from the date of its publication by A. Gray. The Committee was sympathetic to the proposal, but took the view that since Gray did not provide any formal description or diagnosis of the genus in the remodelled sense, the name "Zexmenia A. Gray" was not validly published and cannot be conserved. A minority opinion held that since Gray mentioned the original publication by LaLlave & Lexarza, the name Zexmenia A. Gray was validated by the original description by those authors, and that exclusion of the original type was possible by conservation. The Committee does not recommend conservation. The name Lasianthaea DeCandolle appears to be available; it is stated that about 20 name-changes will be required if Zexmenia i not conserved.

Proposal 351 [sub i66] Digitaria Persoon (I8o5), vs. Digitaria Adanson (1763, nom. illegit.), Syntherisma Walter (1788). (5-7). (Taxon 22: 159. 1973). The Committee agrees that the well-known name Digitaria should be retained, by conservation if necessary. An earlier Committee (Taxon 3: 112. 1954) believed conservation was in their view the name was Fabricius unnecessary; validly published by (1759)- Modern opinion is divided on the validity of Fabricius' names, but in any event it appears to be impossible to typify Digitaria Fabr. so as to retain it in the modern sense. It is therefore proposed to conserve the name from the date of its publication by Persoon (I8o5), or alternatively, provided the legalistic requirements of the case can be met, from 1768 when the name was published by Haller. The Committee recommends conservation from the date of Haller's publication, this having the advantage of 37 years' priority over Persoon, and obviating the necessity of including Syntherisma Walt. among the nomina rejicienda. Haller was the first to provide a generic description of Digitaria which is applicable to the genus in its current sense. One of his two included species was the plant now known as Digitaria sanguinalis, which is an appropriate lectotype. Haller's concept of Digitaria as understood for purposes of nomenclature, was a new one, he not having included the type of Digitaria Fabr., which is taken to be a species of Paspalum. The recommended entry in the Code would read as follows:

sub 166. Digitaria Haller, Stirp. Helv. 2: (H) Digitaria Fabricius, Enum. P1. Horti Helmstad. 244. 1768. 207. I759. T.: D. sanguinalis (L.) Scop. Fl. T.: Paspalum sp. ed. Carn. 2, I: 52. 1771 (typ. (H) Digitaria Adanson, Fam. P1. 2: 38, cons.) 55o. 1763. T.: Tripsacum dactyloides (L.) L. The conservation of Digitaria Haller is recommended to the General Committee by a vote of 9-3, in full cognizance of the fact that the proposal for such conservation was made as an alternative to another course. A minority opinion in the Committee holds that a more appropriate action would be to request the publication in Taxon of a new proposal for conservation of Digitaria Haller.

Proposal 362 [2088] Dendrophthora Eichler (i868), vs. Ozarthis Rafinesque (I838). (Taxon 22: 506. I973).

FEBRUARY I975 245

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions According to the statements in the proposal, the type of Ozarthis Rafinesque is not a species of Dendrophthora. In the opinion of the Committee, this makes conservation unnecessary. The author of the proposal concurs, and has withdrawn his request for conservation.

Proposal 369 [post 4299] Androstachys Prain (1908) vs. Androstachys Grand' Eury (1877). (9-0). (Taxon 22: 694. I973)- Androstachys Prain is a small but well known genus of Africa and Madagascar, referred to Euphorbiaceae or more recently treated as the type of a monotypic family, Androstachydaceae. No other name is available for the genus. Androstachys Grand' Eury was published simultaneously with Schizostachys Grand' Eury; both names referred to the same plant, the former on a plate with analyses, the latter in the text. Both names were accepted, but in different parts of the same publication, and both must be regarded as valid under Art. 34. The Committee recommends the conservation of Androstachys Prain over Androstachys Grand' Eury. The Committee is informed that the publication in which the latter appeared is more properly abbreviated as Mem. Divers Savants Acad. Roy. Sci. Inst. Roy. France, Sci. Math. 24, no. i.

Idesia Maximowicz vs. Idesia Proposal 370. [5331] (1866) Scopoli (I777). (8-1). (Taxon 22: 694. 1973). Idesia is a monotypic genus of Flacourtiaceae, native of eastern Asia, the type of the subtribe Idesiinae. The one species is a well known tree in eastern Asia, with varieties in Japan, Korea, and China. The name has been accepted since its publication by essentially all authors of monographic, floristic, and horticultural publications. Two substitute names have been proposed, Polycarpa Linden ex Carr. (1868), and Cathayeia Ohwi (1931). Polycarpa is illegitimate because it is a homonym of Polycarpa L. (Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 859. 1759), and by many authors would be considered a homonym of Polycarpon L. (Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 881, 1360. 1759) and Polycarpaea Lam. Cathayeia Ohwi is available but has not been used to any extent, even its author having abandoned it for Idesia in his later floristic works. Idesia has been proposed for conservation twice before. The Subcommittee for Phanero- gamae rejected the first proposal by a vote of 2-9 (Taxon 3: 118. 1954). A second proposal (Taxon 8: 24. 1959) was rejected by this Committee (Taxon io: 124. 1961) by a vote of 5-6. Those voting for the proposal emphasized the universal usage of Idesia Maxim., and those voting against were reluctant "to conserve the name of such a small genus", and pointed out that the name Polycarpa was available. The new proposal continues to stress the continued use of Idesia Maxim. by all Asiatic botanists, even since the decision of this Committee in 1961. It admits that Cathayeia Ohwi is a valid name if Idesia is to be replaced, but points out that names of various other small and monotypic genera have been conserved in recent years. The Committee recognizes that Polycarpa Carr. is illegitimate, and that the adoption of the correct name Cathayeia might well cause confusion with the name Cathaya Chun & Kuang (1958). Feeling that rejection of the proposal again would serve no useful purpose, the Committee recommends that existing usage be regularized by conservation of Idesia Maxim.

Proposal 375. [2078] Struthanthus Martius (1830) vs. Spirostylis Presl (1829). (8-0, Taxon I abstention). 23: 431. I974). Struthanthus is a genus of about 5o species, widespread in the American tropics. The name is familiar, having been universally used by writers who have had occasion to mention this important genus of mistletoes. Spirostylis was taken up by Van Tieghem in I895, but apparently no other author has accepted the name. It is proposed to conserve Struthanthus, in order to retain a familiar name, and to avoid the approximately 5o new combinations that would result if Spirostylis were to be adopted. The Committee recommends conservation.

Proposal 376. [3292] Brunia Lamarck (I785) vs. Brunia Linnaeus (i753). (9-0). (Taxon 23: 432. 1974). Brunia consists of 7 South African species; the name is well known and is the basis

246 TAXONVOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions for the family name Bruniaceae. Brongniart (i826) divided the genus, typifying the name by Brunia nodiflora L. (a dicarpellary species) and assigning two unicarpellary species (B. lanuginosa L., B. abrotanoides L.) to the new genus Berzelia Brongn. The names Brunia and Berzelia became well known in the sense of Brongniart. Linnaeus, however, placed Brunia in the group Pentandria Monogynia, wherefore the lectotype should be chosen from among the unicarpellary species known to him (Brunia nodiflora in any event proves on the basis of the type-specimen to have been not an angiosperm, but the gymnosperm Widdringtonia cupressoides). The only acceptable lectotype of Brunia L. appears to be B. lanuginosa L., a species which is also the type of Berzelia Brongn. In an earlier proposal (Taxon 21: 710. 1972) the conservation of Berzelia over Brunia L. was advocated. It was felt, however, that the well-known name Brunia should be saved, and the earlier proposal was withdrawn in favor of the present one. The earliest re-description of Brunia after Linnaeus is by Lamarck (1785), who described the genus as having a bifid stigma (or two styles) and dicarpellary ovary. Brunia Lam. is appropriately lectotypified by B. paleacea Berg, which fits the generic description well. It is proposed to conserve Brunia Lam. with type B. paleacea (a dicarpellary species) over Brunia L. with type B. lanuginosa L. (a unicarpellary species). This will maintain status quo of the 7 species at present in Brunia, and will also permit the continuing usage of Berzelia Brongn. with lectotype B. lanuginosa. The Committee recommends conservation.

Proposal 377. [3557] Hoffmannseggia Cavanilles (1798), vs. Larrea Ortega (1797). (9-o). (Taxon 23: 433. 1974). Hoffmannseggia is a genus of 25-30 species distributed from southwestern United States to Chile and Argentina, with 3 species in southern Africa. With few exceptions the name has been generally applied (although with variant spellings) since its publication. It was, however, a deliberate and illegitimate replacement for Larrea Ortega, the use of which is now prevented by the conservation of Larrea Cav. (Zygophyllaceae). The earliest available name for the genus currently called Hoffmannseggia is Melano- sticta DC. (1825), which apparently has been applied only to two South African species. The American plants have universally been called Hoffmannseggia except for the use of Larrea in North American Flora (1930) and a few other publications. Conservation of Hoffmannseggia Cav. is proposed in the interest of simplification of nomenclature and the retention of a familiar and much-used name. It is suggested that the spelling Hoffmannseggia be adopted in spite of some usage to the contrary, because the man commemorated by the name seems almost always to have spelled his name Hoffmannsegg, not Hoffmansegg as apparently supposed by Cavanilles. The Committee recommends conservation in the form proposed. R. Proposal 378. [4079] Acronychia J. & G. Forster (i775), vs. Jambolifera Linnaeus (I753). (9-0). (Taxon 23: 435. I974)- is Acronychia already conserved, but only against Cunto Adans. (I763). The genus Acronychia consists of about 42 species from India to China, Australia, and the Pacific Islands. There is a modern consensus that the type-species of Jambolifera, J. pedunculata L., based on a Ceylonese specimen in the Hermann herbarium, is a species of Acronychia. The name Jambolifera has never been widely adopted, at least in part because of confusion among i8th Century authors as to its identity. It has not been accepted by any author since Otto Kuntze (189i), and to revive it would be contrary to all modern usage and would unnecessarily complicate nomenclature. It is therefore proposed to add Jambolifera L. to the list of nomina rejicienda under Acronychia. In this the Committee concurs.

Proposal no. 381. [8079] Isoglossa Oersted (1854) vs. Rhytiglossa Nees ex Lindley (1836). (9-o). (Taxon 23: 440. 1974). Isoglossa is one of the larger genera of Acanthaceae in Africa, including probably 5o species or more. The name has been almost universally used since I854 when it was proposed by Oersted as a segregate from Rhytiglossa, and when the latter name was applied by Oersted to an American group closely related generically to Isoglossa. The name Rhytiglossa Nees ex Lindl., however, was originally applied to the African group

FEBRUARY1975 247

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions later designated as Isoglossa, and is the correct name for that group. Only 5 relevant combinations under Rhytiglossa have been made; failure to conserve Isoglossa will thus necessitate about 40 new combinations under Rhytiglossa. The American species referred by Oersted to Rhytiglossa have by consensus during the last century or more been included either in Justicia L., or in its segregate Dianthera L. Conservation of Isoglosra would maintain the status quo in Africa, and would not affect the nomenclature of any American group. The Committee recommends conservation.

Summary: The Committee recommends conservation of sub i66 Digitaria Haller (as an alternative to Digitaria Persoon, q.v. below), post 4299 Androstachys Prain, 5331 Idesia Maximowicz, 2078 Struthanthus Martius, 3292 Brunia Lamarck, 3557 Hoffmann- seggia Cavanilles, and 8079 Isoglossa Oersted. It does not recommend the conservation of 9216 Zexmenia A. Gray, nor that of sub 166 Digitaria Persoon. It recommends that the name Jambolifera Linnaeus be added to the list of nomina rejicienda under 4079 Acronychia J. R. & G. Forster. The proposal to conserve 2088 Dendrophthora Eichler has been withdrawn. ROGERS McVAUGH,secretary

Committee for Bryophyta

The present membership of the committee is as follows: C. E. B. Bonner, Switzerland F. Demaret, Belgium P. A. Florschiitz, Netherlands (secretary) M. Fulford, U.S.A. (chairman) R. Grolle, DDR S. Hattori, Japan H. Inoue, Japan S. Jovet-Ast, France W. D. Margadant, Netherlands G. Sayre, U.S.A. W.C. Steere, U.S.A. R. v. d. Wijk, Netherlands

The committee members voted by mail ballot on the following nomina conservanda proposita:

Prop. 232 (Taxon 17: 443-444. 1968) Daltonia Brid. 5 in favour, 5 against, 2 abstentions. This problem was returned in 1969 to the secretary for further study. This study revealed no new data. The late Dr. Proskauer indicated in a letter to the secretary that conversation would not be necessary if we assume that Hooker & Taylor lectotypified Cryphaea in 1818 by residue with Neckera filiformis when including N. heteromalla in Daltonia. Bridel lectotypified in turn Daltonia by residue with D. splachnoides in 1819, by making in Cryphaea the combinations C. filiformis and C. heteromalla. Although not a published proposal I put this solution on the ballot form; 5 were in favour of Proskauers view, 5 against and 2 abstentions. Another proposal came in a letter from Dr. Margadant, i.e. to conserve a lectotype (D. splachnoides) for Daltonia. This was also included in the ballot: 7 in favour, 4 against, i abstention.

This problem will need further consideration in Leningrad. Prop. 305 (Taxon 19: 298. 1970) Muelleriella Dusen 8 in favour, 3 against, i abstention Prop. 312 (Taxon I9: 646-647. 1970) Chiloscyphus Corda corr. Dum. 12 in favour, o against Prop. 333 (Taxon 21: 536. 1972) Pterygophyllum Brid. 4 in favour, 7 against, I abstention Prop. 343 (Taxon 21: 708. 1972) Porellaceae Cavers 9 in favour, I against, 2 abstentions

248 TAXONVOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Prop. 359 (Taxon 22: 504. 1973) Lejeuneaceae Casares-Gil. 11 in favour, I against Prop. 363 (Taxon 22: 5o6-5o8. 1973) Bryoxiphium Mitt. ii in favour, I against Prop. 364 (Taxon 22: 508. 1973) Bryoxiphiaceae Besch. 11 in favour, I against Prop. 365 (Taxon 22: 508-509. 1973) Eustichiaceae Broth. Io in favour, 2 against Prop. 366 (Taxon 22: 689-690. 1973) Lejeunea Libert I1 in favour, I against Prop. 367 (Taxon 22: 690-691. 1973) Scapania (Dum.) Dum. (emend. typ.) 11 in favour, I against Prop. 368 (Taxon 22: 691-694. 1973) Pleuridium Rabenh. 11 in favour, I against

Proposals 305, 312, 343, 359, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367 and 368 are recommended for acceptance. Proposal 333 is rejected. Proposal 232 again needs further consideration.

P. A. FLORSCHitTZ, secretary

Subcommittee for Family Names

The Subcommittee for Family Names for the period of 1969-1975 consisted of the following members:

Buchheim, Giinther (Pittsburgh, Pa., U.S.A., secretary) Butzin, Friedhelm (Berlin, Germany) Dandy, James E. (London, Great Britain) Greuter, Werner (Kifissia, Greece) Wood, Carroll E., jr. (Cambridge, Mass. U.S.A.)

Early in 1971 the subcommittee decided to change the citation of the conserved family name Taxodiaceae Warming to: Haandb. Syst. Bot. ed. 2, 163. 1884. This decision was subsequently approved by the General Committee and incorporated in the 1972 edition of the I.C.B.N. (p. 222). Unfortunately, a misprint occurred which should be corrected in the next edition of the Code (to read: Haandb., not Handb.; Warming's book of 1884 is in Danish, not in German). The following proposals concerning family names were considered by the membership of the subcommittee:

Without number: Taxon 20(5/6): 822. 1971 (Proposal Paclt) No. 15: Taxon 21(5/6): 719. 1972 (Proposal Rauschert) No. 16: Taxon 21(5/6): 719-720. 1972 (Proposal Rauschert) No. 17: Taxon 21(5/6): 720. 1972 (Proposal Rauschert) No. 18: Taxon 21(5/6): 720. 1972 (Proposal Rauschert) No. 39: Taxon 23(4): 657. 1974 (Proposal Petersen) No. 40: Taxon 23(4): 657. 1974 (Proposal Petersen) No. 53: Taxon 23(4): 673-674. 1974 (Proposal Rauschert)

Proposal 15 was subsequently withdrawn by Rauschert (Taxon 23(4): 674. 1974) and replaced by his new Proposal 53; hence the subcommittee voted only on Proposal 53. The results of the balloting are as follows: of the members sent in their one 4 5 ballots, member abstained from voting. The breakdown of the votes, in tabular form, is presented below:

Proposal number Number of votes Yes No Special Study

Without number 4 0 4 0 16 4 1 3 0 17 4 I 3 0 18 4 I I 2 39 4 2 2 0 40 4 1 3 0 53 3 3 0 0

FEBRUARY 1975 249

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Only one proposal (no. 53) got the unanimous endorsement of the committee members voting, while one other proposal (no. 18) received the majority of the votes cast; all other proposals (without no., 16-17, 39-40) were insufficiently supported. Commentary: The unanimous rejection of Paclt's proposal (without no.) is certainly due to the fact that the same arguments were already presented in i960/i96i when the original list of conserved family names was prepared. At that time, these name variants were carefully considered, but not adopted. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, the subcommittee recommends to leave the four family names Buddlejaceae, Greyiaceae, Najadaceae and Saurauiaceae as given in Appendix II of the 1972 edition of the Code.

Proposal 16: This proposal aims at prohibiting the use of the name Compositae for a family in a more restricted circumscription (e.g. if the Cichoriaceae are treated as a separate family). The majority of the subcommittee feels that no cogent reasons for the adoption of this proposal were presented. The example of Leguminosae, which is quoted by Rauschert in support of his opinion, does not really qualify, because in that case there is a separate name for the family in a narrow circumscription available (Papilionaceae), but none for Compositae s.str.

Proposal 17: Two arguments against adoption are: i) Since the majority of the subcommittee rejects Proposal 16, it automatically also is against the inclusion of Compositae in this article of the Code. 2) Not every conceivable change of circumscription requires a name change. Only if the conditions of paragraph 3 of Note 3 of Article 18 are fulfilled, a name change has to take place.

Proposal 18: This is primarily a linguistic problem; hence it should be solved by some competent classical scholars.

Proposal 39: The tie in voting reflects contradictory reasons for adopting or rejecting the addition of the word "Latin". One group (2 votes) holds that it is superfluous, since only Latin terminations are meant and admitted under the Code; one person wants the word "Latin" inserted just to avoid any misinterpretation that non-Latin terminations might be concerned; and one vote is in favor of adopting non-Latin terminations (as is the author of this proposal).

Proposal 40: Because this proposal is restricted to fungi, it may be argued that this subcommittee has no business in taking an official stand. However, this proposal is threatening the very basis on which the list of Nomina Familiarum Conservanda is based, and therefore the majority of the subcommittee definitely thinks it should speak out against this proposal. When the original list of conserved family names was in prepara- tion in i96i, the secretary of the subcommittee was informed by an important decision of the General Committee concerning the matter of family names first published with non-Latin terminations (letter to the members of the General Committee, dated Utrecht, 30 March i96i).

"4. Family-names published with non-latin terminations: Such names are not validly published: 9 members Such names are validly published if they otherwise fulfill the requirements: 3 members No vote: 2 members

The result of this vote has been communicated to the secretary of the subcommittee for family-names." This decision by the General Committee was mentioned in the report given at the Section of Nomenclature of the ioth International Botanical Congress at Edinburgh, which was published as Appendix II in Regnum Vegetabile 44: 61-65. 1966 (on page 63, second column, lines 14-17). In the light of the overwhelming support of the members of the General Committee for not accepting family names with non-Latin terminations as validly published, the majority of this subcommittee feels that a special provision for fungi accepting such

250 TAXON VOLUME 24

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions names as validly published, cannot logically be defended. Therefore, proposals 41 and 42 (Petersen, Taxon 23(4): 657. 1974), dealing with vernacular terminations, although not referring to family names, should also be rejected.

Proposal 53: This is a definite improvement over the present wording. It helps to eliminate questions which at various times have been put in writing to the secretary of this subcommittee.

Summary: The Subcommittee for Family Names recommends adoption of Proposal no. 53 and referral of Proposal no. 18 to a panel of linguistic experts; on the other hand, it does not recommend the adoption of the following proposals: without no. (Paclt), 16-17, 39-40. GiuNTHER BUCHHEIM, secretary

PALEOBOTANICAL TAXONOMY AND NOMENCLATURE: THE NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH*

S. V. Meyen**

Summary The failure of paleobotanists to appreciate parallelism and character-variation in their materials underlies the present confusion and instability of paleobotanical classification and nomenclature. On the other hand, application of the Code in its present form does not bring about stability either, and rewording of part of Art. 3 is proposed.

Taxa of fossil plants should be recognized on the basis of the totality of our knowledge of whole organisms, rather than on one or the other of their parts. Moreover, only those characteristics that can be demonstrated by actual petrifactions or impressions should be used in delimiting taxa, rather than hypothetical data derived by extrapolation from such remains. The most ideal classification will recognize taxa that are further elucidated by subsequent research and new data, rather than constantly modified totally or to a major extent by the new evidence. To achieve these objectives we need, at various stages, both "artificial" and "natural" classificatory schemes, the first gradually giving way to the second as more facts become known and the totality of the taxa is better understood. The degree of "naturalness' or "artificiality" of plant taxa, whether fossil or Recent is highly subjective and even with a very complete understanding of a group, subjective judgement still plays a role and we must admit that a truly "natural" classification is illusory. So, for various reasons, we produce and accept compromises as we delimit taxa. Moreover, the discontinuities recognized in a multi-taxon spectrum with strong clinal characteristics vary greatly in relation to the experience of the taxonomist, the purposes for his classification, and especially his preconceptions concerning the group. Of course, unlike extant plant taxonomy, where potentially most of the pertinent data are available or attainable, paleobotanists necessarily work with only bits of the record. A classification based on an incomplete knowledge of the fossil plant can be termed "formal" [artificial] and the taxa involved, "form-taxa". Inasmuch as no taxon, living or fossil, can be known totally, all classification has such a "formal" quality, to one degree or another. The extent of formalness or of naturalness is itself a cline, the points along which are entirely subjectively determined and relative.

* Abbreviated version of a more detailed paper which could not be published because of its length. Xerox copies of the original paper (typescript) are available, upon request, from the Editor of Taxon. [Ed.]. This paper was received on time and could not be printed earlier for technical reasons. The rapporteurs request the Committee for Fossil plants to study the proposals and to report at Leningrad. ** Geological Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Pyzhevsky per. 7, 109017 Moscow-17, USSR.

FEBRUARY 1975 251

This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:42:26 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions