CONGRESS ACTION, XVIII IBC (2011)
Congres action on proposals-to-amend-the-Code
at the XVIII IBC,
the 2011, Melbourne Congress.
Based on (by permission of the
IAPT):
John McNeill,
Nicholas J. Turland,
Anna M. Monro &
Brendan J. Lepschi,
“XVIII
International Botanical Congress:
Preliminary mail vote
and report of Congress action
on nomenclature proposals”
(in
Taxon 60: 1507-1520. 2011).
Adjusted according to the
proceedings (2014) by Christina Flann,
Nicholas J. Turland & Anna M. Monro, in
PhytoKeys 41.
Links mostly go to the relevant page of a PDF,
a local copy
(copyright IAPT for the material from Taxon), but some go to the
relevant website.
See also:
•
conversion table
•
list of proposals
| Synopsis | Proposal as submitted | Congress action | Comm. advice |
| Gen. prop. - Prop. A | – 016 – Hawksworth & al. | c.alg.: –, c.fun.: + |
was accepted as amended (Heerendeen),
to reflect the desirability
of recognizing phycology as well as mycology in the title
and the
other specified places in the Code;
also amended (May) to adjust
the footnote.
On the final day, a proposal (presented by Norvell) was
accepted, to change the title from the
International Code of
Botanical, Mycological, and Phycological Nomenclature to
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.
| Gen. prop. - Prop. B | – 017 – Hawksworth & al. | c.fun.: + |
was accepted as amended (McNeill, Reveal), so that the Editorial
Committee, rather than add “and fungus/fungi”,
was to replace
“plant(s)” by “organism(s)”,
where it was intended to include
all organisms covered by the Code.
| Gen. prop. - Prop. C | – 101 – Cleal & Thomas | c.fos.: + |
was accepted in the understanding that the Editorial Committee
would replace the words
“fossil plants” by “plant fossils”,
“plant, fungal or algal fossils” (Heerendeen),
or just “fossils”
(Rijckevorsel, Funk, Malécot), as appropriate.
| Preamble - Prop. A | – 048 – Redhead & al. | c.alg.: ?, c.fun.: + |
was accepted as amended (Greuter) by deleting the word
“phylum” before “Microsporidia”
(see also Art. 13 Prop. A).
| Preamble - Prop. B | – 314 – Gandhi & Reveal |
was accepted, but it was pointed out (Barrie) that
“oppressed”
should be changed to “suppressed”.
| Art. 1 - Prop. A | – 102 – Cleal & Thomas | c.fos.: + |
was accepted on the understanding (Prud’homme van Reine)
that fossil taxa do not include diatoms,
and that the Editorial
Committee would make this clear.
was accepted as amended (Greuter, Sennikov) to adopt
“replacement name” rather than “nomen novum”.
It was also
suggested (Turland) to adopt “new status” for
“status novus”.
(It was later pointed out
by the Rapporteurs that “new status”
required correction to
“name with a new status” or
“name at
a new rank”, and that the Editorial Committee would handle
this)
| Art. 6 - Prop. B | – 242 – Turland | – yes |
On the final day,
a motion from the floor (presented by Wiersema)
was accepted (but with the Editorial Committee to clean it up), to
amend Art.
6.4 second sentence,
18.3, and
19.5,
to read (deleted
text struck-out;
new text in bold):
“6.4. …
A name which according to this Code
was illegitimate
when published cannot become legitimate later unless it
(or,
in the case of names of families
or subdivisions of families,
the name on which it is based)
is conserved or sanctioned.”
“18.3. A name of a family
based on an illegitimate generic
name is illegitimate unless it
or the generic name upon
which it is based is conserved.”
“19.5. A name of a subdivision of a family
based on an
illegitimate generic name
that is not the base of a conserved
family name is illegitimate
unless the generic name upon
which it is based is conserved or is the base of a conserved
family name.”
| Art. 7 - Prop. A | – 263 – Turland | – yes | |
| Art. 7 - Prop. B | – 315 – Gandhi & Reveal | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 7 - Prop. C | – 276 – Perry | – yes | |
| Art. 7 - Prop. D | – 155 – Sennikov | – no | |
| Art. 7 - Prop. E | – 156 – Sennikov |
was accepted as amended (Greuter), inserting
“of a new taxon”
after “A name” at the beginning.
was referred to the Editorial Committee, as recommended by the
Rapporteurs,
to implement the intent by inserting
“(See also
Art. 7.11)” at the end of
Art. 9.21.
| Art. 7 - Prop. L | – 183 – Gams | – no | c.fun.: + |
| Art. 7 - Prop. M | – 266 – Turland | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 8 - Prop. A | – 216 – Perry | – yes | c.alg.: ? |
| Art. 8 - Prop. B | – 135 – Traverse | – no | c.fos.: – |
| Art. 8 - Prop. C | – 158 – Bandyopadhyay & Pathak | – no (mail vote) |
A motion from the floor (Prud’homme van Reine) was accepted to
add to
Art. 8.4
(addition in bold):
“(e.g. by lyzophilization or deep-freezing
to remain alive in that
inactive state)”
A motion from the floor (Malécot) to add a Recommendation
defining “paralectotype” was rejected.
[the suggestion
of the Rapporteurs to delete the whole of
Art. 10.5(a)
was proposed and rejected]
| Art. 10 - Prop. B | – 317 – Gandhi & Reveal | – sp.c. | |
| Art. 10 - Prop. C | – 227 – Redhead & al. | – replaced | c.fun.: + |
| Art. 11 - Prop. A | – 022 – Rijckevorsel | – ed.c. |
On the final day, a motion from the floor
(Heerendeen, on behalf
of the Committee on Fossils),
was accepted, to delete all reference to
“subfossils” from the
Code (i.e. from Art. 11.8).
| Art. 13 - Prop. A | – 049 – Redhead & al. | c.fun.: + |
was accepted as amended (Dorr) to read
“Names of
Microsporidia
are governed …” (see also
Preamble Prop. A).
| Art. 13 - Prop. B | – 165 – Silva | – sp.c. | c.alg.: – |
| Art. 13 - Prop. C | – 089 – Sennikov | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. A | – 243 – Perry | – yes | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. B | – 006 – Moore & Rushworth |
was accepted as amended (Greuter, Wiersema), adding the words
“except in the case of correctable errors”.
| Art. 14 - Prop. C | – 305 – Redhead | – replaced | c.fun.: + |
| Art. 14 - Prop. D | – 239 – Turland |
was accepted as amended, reducing
“authors together with the
places and dates of publication” to
“places of publication”
(Wiersema) and appending (Greuter, Redhead):
“including
names that otherwise would not be validly published”. It was
also suggested to add
“, except under the provisions of Art. 14.12,”
(Rijckevorsel,
Reveal).
| Art. 14 - Prop. E | – 240 – Turland | – yes | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. F | – 241 – Turland | – no | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. G | – 099 – Redhead | c.alg.: – |
the general principle of this proposal was accepted (Knapp):
“The Editorial Committee has the option to produce the
Appendices to the Code in electronic form only.”
| Art. 14 - Prop. H | – 098 – Redhead | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 14 - Prop. I | – 100 – Redhead | – ed.c. |
On the final day, a motion from the floor (Hawksworth), to
extend conservation to all ranks, was rejected.
was accepted as amended (Greuter)
so that the first portion of
the second sentence of Art. 16.1 will read:
“Such names
may be either (a) automatically typified names,
formed from the genitive singular of a name of an included
genus by replacing the genitive singular inflection
(Latin
-ae, -i, -us, -is;
transliterated Greek -ou, -os, -es, -as, or -ous,
and its equivalent -eos) with the appropriate termination;”.
was accepted,
with the proviso that it would be a strictly editorial
rearrangement, without deleting any provision.
was accepted as amended (Heerendeen, Karen Wilson, Soreng,
McNeill, Hawksworth, Paton, Nic Lughadha) by the addition
after “Portable Document Format”
of the words “or a successor
international standard format communicated by the General
Committee”.
[An amendment (Soreng) to require registration of
electronically published names was rejected. As was an
amendment (Janarthanam) to require peer review]
was accepted as amended (Karen Wilson) by deletion of
“–1:2005” in “PDF/A archival standard (ISO 19005–1:2005)”,
(as unnecessary).
| Rec. 29A - Prop. B | – 211 – Sp.C. electr. publ. | c.fos.: +, c.fun.: + |
was accepted as amended, so that the first clause reads:
“Authors
should preferably publish in publications that are
archived, …” (Greuter).
and clause (a) changed to:
“The
material should be placed
in multiple trusted online
digital repositories, e.g. an ISO-certified repository;
(Penev).”
and an additional clause (c) added:
“Deposition
of printed copies in libraries
in more than one
area of the world and preferably on different continents is
also advisable.” (Demoulin, Veldkamp).
| Art. 30 - Prop. A | – 206 – Sp.C. electr. publ. | c.fos.: +, c.fun.: + |
was accepted as amended (Ladiges, Paton) by the replacement
of “1 January 2013” with “1 January 2012”.
| Art. 30 - Prop. B | – 207 – Sp.C. electr. publ. | c.fos.: +, c.fun.: + |
was accepted as amended (Nic Lughadha, McNeill) by the
addition of the words “associated with or within the publication”
after “evidence”.
| Art. 30 - Prop. C | – 149 – Niederle | – no (mail vote) | |
| Rec. 30A - Prop. A | – 212 – Sp.C. electr. publ. | – yes | c.fos.: +, c.fun.: + |
| Rec. 30A - Prop. B | – 213 – Sp.C. electr. publ. | – yes | c.fos.: +, c.fun.: + |
| Rec. 30A - Prop. C | – 150 – Niederle | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 31 - Prop. A | – 208 – Sp.C. electr. publ. | – yes | c.fos.: +, c.fun.: + |
| Art. 31 - Prop. B | – 209 – Sp.C. electr. publ. | – yes | c.fos.: +, c.fun.: + |
[an
amendment (Greuter) to give precedence to one version in
the case of simultaneous publication of paper and electronic
versions was rejected;
also
a motion from the floor (Bill
Barker, McNeill, Turland, Greuter, Buck) to give precedence
to the electronic version when paper and electronic versions
of the same date differ]
| Rec. 31A - Prop. A | – 151 – Pathak & al. | – no | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. A | – 177 – Brummitt | – no | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. B | – 169 – George | – no | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. C | – 126 – Rijckevorsel | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. D | – 128 – Rijckevorsel | – yes | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. E | – 264 – Turland | – yes | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. F | – 250 – Reveal & Gandhi | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. G | – 277 – Perry | – yes | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. H | – 281 – Perry | – no | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. I | – 283 – Perry | – no | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. J | – 090 – Redhead | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 32 - Prop. K | – 091 – Redhead | – withdrawn |
A motion from the floor (Woelkerling, communicated by
Prud’homme van Reine) to alter the definition of “diagnosis”
was rejected. Also a rewrite (Cameron & Prud’homme van
Reine), presented on the final day.
Also,
a proposal to alter
Rec. 32B (Veldkamp, also on the final day).
A motion from the floor (Prud’homme van Reine) was accepted,
to establish an Appendix listing binding decisions made under
Art. 32.4
(on the valid publication of names).
A motion from the floor (Wiersema, McNeill, Greuter) was
accepted to give the Editorial Committee
a mandate to restructure
Chapter IV Section 2
(Art. 32-45) without changing the meaning
of any provision.
A motion from the floor (Smith) was accepted, to extend “Latin
or English” to all organisms covered by the Code.
A motion from the floor (Sennikov) was accepted, to bring the
starting date forward to 1 January 2012.
| Rec. 36A - Prop. A | – 037 – Filgueiras & Prado | – no (mail vote) | |
| Rec. 36A - Prop. B | – 116 – Figueiredo & al. | – no (mail vote) | |
| Rec. 36A - Prop. C | – 189 – Demoulin | – ed.c. | c.fun.: + |
| Art. 37 - Prop. A | – 038 – Kumar & al. | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 37 - Prop. B | – 171 – Pathak & al. | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 37 - Prop. C | – 001 – Mottram & Gorelick | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 37 - Prop. D | – 164 – Sennikov | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 37 - Prop. E | – 191 – Ohashi & Ohashi | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 37 - Prop. F | – 105 – Yu & al. | – ed.c. | |
| Rec. 37A - Prop. A | – 004 – Shui & Wen |
was accepted as amended (Greuter, McNeill, Kirk, Hawksworth,
McNeill, Thiele), so that the new paragraph would begin:
“A number
permanently identifying the specimen, if
present, …”
| Rec. 37A - Prop. B | – 015 – Pathak & Bandyopadhyay | – no (mail vote) | |
| Rec. 37A - Prop. C | – 152 – Ohashi & Ohashi | – yes | |
| Rec. 37A - Prop. D | – 153 – Ohashi & Ohashi | – yes | |
| Rec. 37B - Prop. A | – 005 – Pathak & Bandyopadhyay | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 37bis - Prop. A | – 117 – Hawksworth & al. | c.fun.: + |
- adding (Greuter) in Art. 37bis.1 (after
“For”): “new names
of”
- rephrasing (Norvell) Art. 37bis.1,
so that the text read
“…the citation of the identifier issued by a recognized
repository for the name (Art. 37bis.3) in the…”
- appending (Norvell) to Art. 37bis.2 the clause
“when
accessioned and published information for an
identifier differ the published information shall be
considered definitive”, and
- deleting (May) the asterisked footnote in Art. 37bis.3.
On the final day, a motion from the floor (Marhold) was rejected,
to add vascular plants.
| Rec. 37bisA - Prop. A | – 118 – Hawksworth & al. | c.fun.: + |
was accepted as amended (Greuter, Kirk, McNeill), replacing
“minimal” by “required” before
“elements of information”.
| Rec. 37bisA - Prop. B | – 184 – Gams | c.fun.: + | |
was accepted, with the suggestion (Reveal) that in the last line
“record number” be changed to “identifier”.
[having been amended (Greuter, McNeill, Reveal, McNeill),
to form a Recommendation:
“Author citations should not be used after names of taxa
above the rank of family.”]
On the final day, a motion from the floor (Reveal)
was accepted
as amended (Greuter), to convert
Art. 46 Note 4
into
a rule,
appropriately worded.
The proposal published by Turland
(in
Taxon 60: 913–914. 2011)
on Acacia was raised from the floor (Schrire).
After discussion,
in which “Protoacacia” was replaced by
“Acanthacacia”,
this
was rejected. [The
Rijckevorsel proposal was not discussed.]
| Art. 52 - Prop. A | – 293 – Perry | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 52 - Prop. B | – 330 – Gandhi & Reveal | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 52 - Prop. C | – 331 – Gandhi & Reveal | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 52 - Prop. D | – 332 – Gandhi & Reveal | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 53 - Prop. A | – 043 – Rijckevorsel | – withdrawn | |
| Art. 53 - Prop. B | – 261 – Reveal & Gandhi | – ed.c. | |
| Art. 53 - Prop. C | – 012 – Huang & al. | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 53 - Prop. D | – 013 – Huang & al. | – no (mail vote) | |
| Art. 53 - Prop. E | – 095 – Yu & al. |
was accepted, with the Editorial Committee to consider if all
the adjectival forms with the stems “tibet-”
and “thibet-”
need be included in the Code.
| Art. 53 - Prop. F | – 096 – Yu & al. | – no | |
| Art. 53 - Prop. G | – 167 – Silva | – yes | |
| Art. 53 - Prop. H | – 027 – Rijckevorsel | – yes |
A motion from the floor (Silva, communicated by Prud’homme
van Reine) to introduce the term
“parahomonym” in the Code
was rejected.
A motion from the floor (Greuter) was accepted to replace
“is permissible” in the third sentence of
Art. 60.6
with
“is an
optional phonetic device that is not considered to alter the
spelling and is thus permissible.”
was accepted
with the addition (Greuter), at the end of the
sentence, of:
“Abbreviated names
and epithets are to be expanded in
conformity with botanical tradition.”
A motion from the floor (Demoulin) was accepted,
and referred
to the Editorial Committee, to replace in Art. 62
*Ex. 1
“Eucalyptus L’Hér.,
which lacks a botanical tradition”
by
“Eucalyptus L’Hér.,
which has a botanical tradition, even if
limited in time”.
A motion from the floor (Landrum,
communicated by Lewis) to
conduct the Nomenclature Section on the www was rejected.
Committees
Special Committees (to report to the XIX IBC) to be set up:
•
Special Committee on Publications Using a
Largely Mechanical
Method of Selection of Types (Art. 10.5(b)) (especially under the
American Code).
[ ]
This Committee to develop a list of works that are deemed to have
followed the American Code (Arthur & al. in
Bull. Torrey Bot.
Club 34: 167-178. 1907;
and its precursor,
id. 31: 249-290. 1904),
in which the method of type selection is “considered to be largely
mechanical” (especially under the
American Code).
To it was referred
Art. 10 Prop. B
(317 by Gandhi & Reveal).
•
Special Committee on By-laws for the Nomenclature Section.
[ ]
To it were referred
Div. III Prop. B, C & E
(Prop. 199, 200 & 202
by Landrum), as well as the motion from the floor to have the
Nomenclature Section on the www.
-
This Committee to have a
subcommittee on governance of
the Code with respect to fungi;
to it were referred
Div. III
Prop. F-H (18-20 by Hawksworth & al.).
• Special Committee on Institutional Votes.
•
Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names
(including fossils).
[ ]
•
on harmonization of nomenclature of Cyanophyta/Cyanobacteria
[re-established].
To it was referred
Art. 13 Prop. B (165 by Silva).
A motion to establish a committee on the BioCode was declined.
Also, it was resolved to change the name of the
Committee for
Bryophyta to the
Committee for Bryophytes and that of the
Committee for Fossil Plants to the
Committee on Fossils.
In addition to the proposals published in Taxon,
the Nomenclature
Section in Melbourne dealt with proposals raised then and there.
Most prominent among these were the following final proposals
(formulated over the time that the Section met), dealing with names
of fungi.
Typification of sanctioned names
Finally (replacing the
published proposals on sanctiotypification,
as well as an intermediate set of proposals),
the
following set of
proposals (presented by Norvell,
on behalf of Redhead, Pennycook,
herself, Perry, Greuter, Demoulin and Hawksworth) on the
typification of sanctioned names was accepted (new wording in
bold):
• Reword Art. 7.8, and position it to follow Art. 8.1:
“8.1bis.
The type of a name of a species
or infraspecific
taxon adopted in one of the works specified in Art. 13.1(d),
and thereby sanctioned (Art. 15), may be
selected from
among the elements associated with the name
in the
protologue and/or the sanctioning treatment.”
• Add a sentence at the end of Art. 9.2:
“9.2. A lectotype is ….
For sanctioned names, a lectotype
may be selected from among elements associated with
either or both the protologue and the sanctioning
treatment.”
“10.2. If in the protologue of the name of a genus
or of any
subdivision of a genus the holotype or lectotype of one or
more previously or simultaneously published species name(s)
is definitely included (see Art. 10.3),
the type must be
chosen (Art. 7.10 and 7.11) from among these types unless:
a) the type was indicated
(Art. 22.6, 22.7, 37.1 and 37.3)
or designated by the author of the name;
b) the name was
sanctioned, in which case the type may also be chosen
from among the types of species names included in the
sanctioning treatment.
If no type of a previously
or
simultaneously published species name was definitely
included, a type must be otherwise chosen,
but the choice is
to be superseded if it can be demonstrated
that the selected
type is not conspecific with any of the material associated
with the protologue
or associated with a name in a
sanctioning treatment.”
“10.5. The author who first designates a type of a name of a
genus or subdivision of a genus must be followed, but the
choice may be superseded if
(a) it can be shown that it is in
serious conflict with the protologue
(or, for a sanctioned
name, typified under Art. 8.1bis,
with the sanctioning
treatment)
and another element is available which is not
in conflict with the protologue, or
(b) that it was based on a
largely mechanical method of selection.”
[The struck-out text had been deleted earlier by the
acceptance of
Art. 10 Prop. A (Prop. 238).]
• Add a new paragraph to Art. 48:
“48.1bis.
Where a sanctioning author accepted an earlier
name but did not include, even implicitly, any element
associated with its protologue, or when the protologue
did not include the subsequently designated type of the
sanctioned name,
the sanctioning author is considered
to have created a later homonym,
treated as conserved
under Art. 15.1.”
Fungi with a pleomorphic life cycle
The following set of proposals (presented by Redhead), relating
to fungi
with a pleomorphic life cycle, was accepted as amended
(May, Greuter, McNeill, Funk, Rijckevorsel, Greuter, Barrie,
Sennikov, Applequist, Barrie, Greuter, McNeill, Greuter, May,
Barrie, Greuter) (with later editorial adjustments approved by
the proposers incorporated):
• Replace the entire Article 59 with:
“59.1.
On and after 1 January 2013, all names of fungi,
including fungi with mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs)
as well as a meiotic sexual morph (teleomorph), must
conform to all the provisions of this Code
that are not
restricted in application to other groups of organisms
or
from which names of fungi are not specifically excluded.
“Note 1.
Previous editions of this Code provided for
separate names for so called “form-taxa”, asexual forms
(anamorphs) of certain pleomorphic fungi, and restricted
the names applicable to the whole fungus to those typified
by a teleomorph. All legitimate fungal names are now
treated equally for the purposes of establishing priority,
regardless of the life history stage of the type.
“59.2.
Names published prior to 1 January 2013
for the same
taxon of non lichenized Ascomycota and Basidiomycota with
the intent or implied intent of applying to, or being typified
by separate morphs
(e.g., anamorph, synanamorph or
teleomorph) are not considered to be alternative names under
Art. 34.2; nor are they to be treated as nomenclaturally
superfluous under Art. 52.1.
If they are otherwise legitimate,
they compete in providing the correct name for the taxon
under Art. 11.3 and 11.4.”
• In Art. 34.2, in the first sentence add “(but see Art. 59.2)”.
• In Art. 52.1, after mention of Art. 52.3 add “and 59.2”.
• Corollaries:
- in
Art. 1.3, delete the phrase, “As in the case of
form-taxa
for asexual forms (anamorphs) of certain pleomorphic fungi
(Art. 59),”,
- in Art. 7.4, delete reference to Art. 59.6,
- in Art. 7.9, remove reference to Art. 59 and remove Note 1,
- in Art. 9.7, remove “(but see also Art. 59.7)”,
- in
Art. 11.1,
remove “form-taxa of fungi and”
and reference
to Art. 59.4 and 59.5,
- in Art. 11.3, remove reference to Art. 59,
- in
Art. 51.1,
delete the phrase “, or
(in pleomorphic fungi
with names governed by Art. 59)
because the morph
represented by its type is not in accordance with that of the
type of the generic name.”
• Add a new paragraph to Article 14:
“14.n.
For organisms treated as fungi under this Code,
lists
of names may be submitted to the General Committee,
which will refer them to the Nomenclature Committee
for Fungi for examination by subcommittees established
by that Committee in consultation
with the General
Committee and appropriate international bodies.
Accepted
names on these lists, which become permanent as
Appendices XX–YY once reviewed by the Nomenclature
Committee for Fungi and the General Committee,
are to be
listed with their types together with those competing
synonyms
(including sanctioned names) against which they
are treated as conserved.
For lists of rejected names see
Art. 56.n.”
•
Add a new paragraph to Art. 56
[specifically referred to the
Editorial Committee for wording and placement]:
“56.n.
For organisms treated as fungi under this Code,
lists of
rejected names may also be included in the Appendices
established under Art. 14.n.
Such names are to be treated as
though rejected outright under Art. 56.1
and may become
eligible for use only by conservation under Art. 14.”
• Add a new paragraph to Art. 57:
“57.2.
In pleomorphic fungi, in cases where,
prior to 1 January
2013, both teleomorph-typified and anamorph-typified names
were widely used for a taxon, an anamorph-typified name that
has priority must not be taken up until retention of the
teleomorph-typified name has been considered by the General
Committee and rejected.”
Lichenized fungi
•
Subsequently,
a motion from the floor (Lendemer), to add a
new paragraph to Art. 14,
was accepted, as amended (Reveal):
“14.n[bis].
Lichenized fungi,
and those fungi traditionally
associated with them taxonomically (e.g. Mycocaliciaceae,
but not lichenicolous fungi), are exempt from the newly
accepted provisions
in Art. 14.n, 56.n, and 57.2.”
2011 ©, IAPT (Report on Congress action);
2014 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel (this page)
all rights reserved