Naming the Groups: Developing a Stable and Efficient Nomenclature Author(s): John McNeill Reviewed work(s): Source: Taxon, Vol. 49, No. 4, Golden Jubilee Part 2 (Nov., 2000), pp. 705-720 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1223972 . Accessed: 02/06/2012 04:06 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon. http://www.jstor.org TAXON 49 - NOVEMBER2000 705 Naming the groups: developing a stable and efficient nomenclature JohnMcNeill' Summary McNeill, J.: Namingthe groups:developing a stable and efficient nomenclature.- Taxon 49: 705-720. - ISSN 0040-0262. The binomial system of botanical nomenclaturehas existed for almost 250 years, the principleof a taxon having a single correctname determinedon the basis of priorityof publicationwas formalizedalmost 150 yearsago, andthe type methodfor the applicationof scientific names of plants has had internationalacceptance for almost 75 years. In this historic time-frame,the achievementsof the past 50 years are outlined and the question posed as to whetherthe next 50 yearshold any prospectof change,and indeedwhether any changeis possibleor even desirable.The requirementof botanicalnomenclature to provide a stable, unambiguousreference system for plant information implies an inherent conservatismof rules and procedures--eventhe smallest change to the Code, however beneficialit maybe in general,is virtuallycertain to have some destabilizingeffect. Despite this truism,it is suggestedthat the next few years will see quite majorchange. One of the least of these may be the developmentof a separatespecialist nomenclature for communi- cation about major phyletic lineages, not so dissimilar in practice from the specialist nomenclaturecurrently in existence for the micro-variantsimportant in cultivatedplants. Bionomenclatureprovides the mechanism for communicationabout the elements of taxonomy-elements that generallyseek to reflect the greatestinformation on patternsof biodiversity.It will continue to communicatethe general informationcontent of taxa effectively, only if it evolves to take fuller advantageof the opportunitiesof the electronic age. The historicaltendency to improvethe rulesof nomenclatureby continuous"tinkering" with the Code needs to give way to a recognitionthat stability and simplicity are key requirementsof users of names (amongstwhom professionalbiologists are a relatively small minority),and that web access to authoritativelists will generallybe theirpreferred approachto answeringthe nomenclaturalquestions that arise in study and use of plants, animals and micro-organisms.To remainrelevant, the botanicalCode, like the bacterio- logical, and now, to a degree,the zoological,must provide mechanisms for the endorsement of nomenclaturallists thatrepresent the productsof soundscholarship. Key words:bionomenclature, communication, information, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature,nomenclature, PhyloCode, taxonomy. Introduction It is particularlyappropriate to review progress and prospects in botanical nomenclatureas partof the celebrationof the 50th Anniversaryof the foundingof the InternationalAssociation for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT), because it is the foundationand activitiesof IAPT thathave done morethan anything else in the past 50 years to fashion the form and structureof botanicalnomenclature as it exists at the start of the 21st century. As outlined in the Editorialintroducing this series (Stuessy & al., 2000), IAPT was established at the VII International Botanical Congress in Stockholm in 1950, in large measure the brainchild of Lanjouw who played a leading role in rebuilding botanical nomenclature after the disruption of 'Royal OntarioMuseum, and Royal BotanicGarden Edinburgh. Mailing address: Royal BotanicGar- den, 20A InverleithRow, Edinburgh,EH3 5LR, Scotland,U.K. E-mail:[email protected]. Jubilee Series p. 177 706 TAXON49 - NOVEMBER2000 WorldWar II. The originsof IAPT have been well describedelsewhere (cf. Cowan & Stafleu, 1982; Stafleu, 1988), but it is worthemphasising some of the particularly nomenclaturalaspects of the contextin whichIAPT was born. Briquet, the first Rapporteur-gen6ral,and Rapporteur-gen6ralfor the Vienna (1905), Brussels (1910) and Cambridge(1930) Congresses (Briquet 1906, 1912, 1930), died in 1931 before the CambridgeRules could be completed(Harms, the Vice-rapporteur,and otherssuch as Sprague,who succeededBriquet as Rapporteur- g6neral,saw to its completionbut only just before the 1935 AmsterdamCongress). Althoughthere was a NomenclatureSection (then called a Sub-section)meeting and some importantdecisions were taken at Amsterdam,the vacuum left by Briquet's death and the gatheringstorm in Europe resulted in no Amsterdamcode being prepared.The so-called"Brittonia Rules" (Camp & al., 1947) publishedafter World WarII largelyfrom the notes of U.S. participantswere an unofficialrecord2, while a gathering hosted by Lanjouw in Utrecht in June 1948 of a group of nomenclaturalists,many of whom had been membersof the pre-war"Commission de Nomenclatureg6n6rale" that was the predecessor of the present General Committeefor Botanical Nomenclature,laid the groundworkfor the Stockholm meetingsand for IAPT(cf. Lanjouw,1950a, b). So IAPT is largelythe resultof Lanjouw'sdetermination that there would be an ongoing organizationto promotetaxonomy and nomenclatureinternationally and to ensure that the lacuna caused by Briquet's sudden death before completing the CambridgeRules would not occur again. Incidentally,one of Lanjouw's first actions,once it was clear thatthe Secretariatof the new IAPT would be in Utrecht, was to hire a relativelyrecent doctoralgraduate (his thesis on Vochysiaceaehad been defended in the week of the 1948 nomenclaturemeeting in Utrecht),just returnedfrom Indonesia, to do the day-to-daywork of runningthe Association.That person was, of course, Frans Stafleu. When we compare the efforts of Briquet (1930) to bringtogether the variousproposals to the CambridgeCongress, published -or not published-in a diversity of media, with the coherent publication, nowadays,of almost all nomenclaturalmatter in one of the two IAPT publications, Taxonor Regnumvegetabile, we can appreciatethe enormouscontribution made to botanicalnomenclature by Lanjouwand Stafleu-and theirsuccessors-through the establishmentand operationof IAPT. Fifty years may seem a long time, but in the historyof botanicalnomenclature it is not so very long, and the last 50 years are to be seen as a period of gradual evolution ratherthan one of decision on principlesor one of major innovation.I discuss this furtherbelow, but, in a sense, botanicalnomenclature today is not so very differentfrom what it was like 50 years ago-and this is not all due to the reactionarymood of the St. Louis Congress(cf. Greuter& Hawksworth,2000)! Why do I say this? Well, one must comparethe change over the past 50 years with that in the previous200 years. The binomialsystem was introducedin 1753, 247 years ago, the principle of a taxon having a single correct name determined on the basis of priority of publication was formalized around 150 years ago in the 1842 2Theonly official recordwas thatby Sprague(1950) which appearedin Lanjouw'sreport of the 1948 Conference (Lanjouw, 1950b) that was not published until around the time of the Stockholm Congress. Jubilee Series p. 178 TAXON49 - NOVEMBER2000 707 StricklandCode for zoology (Strickland& al., 1843) and in Candolle's(1867) Lois for botany (English translation:Candolle, 1868). The type method for the applicationof scientificnames of plantshas had internationalacceptance for almost 75 years, being finally adoptedat the CambridgeCongress in 1930 (Briquet,1935) with the rapprochementbetween the AmericanCode (Arthur& al., 1907), which alreadyhad the type method,and the InternationalRules (Briquet,1912), which did not. This was fosteredby the IthacaCongress of 1926, at which no formaldecisions on nomenclaturewere takenbut which was an importantstep in the integrationof the two codes that was promotedmost effectively by the collaborationof T. A. Spragueand A. S. Hitchcock[cf. Duggar,1929 (Vol. 2: 1413-1597, "L.Taxonomy" & 1781-1782 "General Proceedings of Section L - Taxonomy"); Nicolson, 1991]. The significance of the type method as opposed to a circumscriptional concept and the historyof its adoptionin botanyare well describedby Moore (1998) and need not be repeated,although I will referto it furtherbelow. Unquestionably,these three developments,the binomialsystem, the principleof priorityand the acceptanceof the type method,are all much more fundamentalto bionomenclaturethan anythingthat has occurredin the past 50 years at least as regardsplant (and animal)names, thoughnot those of bacteriaas discussedbelow. That being said, I believe that there are a numberof fundamentalissues facing botanical nomenclature today that may stimulate major change. In order to understand these, I think we need to look at the purposes