CONVERSION TABLE, II IBC (1905)

Conversion table for proposals to establish the first
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Rules),
submitted to the II IBC, the 1905, Vienna Congress.  Congress
action based on the Proceedings.

Links go to several sources, mostly the Biodiversity Heritage
Library, but also to local copies (copyright varies, but in many
cases has expired).

See also:

   •  Congress action
   •  list of proposals
 

For this Congress, in many cases the Rapporteur not so much
collected proposals as created them.  The proposals as published
by their authors did not follow any particular template, but took
many forms: there were a few proposals to replace the entire
lois with a new Code.  The Rapporteur drew up a list of key
issues and came up with proposals to deal with these, leading
to many proposals that differ only minutely from each other,
possibly to illustrate a degree of consensus.  In some cases
these proposals were not taken literally from the publications
they reportedly came from, but are intended to represent the
spirit of what the author intended.  This means that a small
sentence in an original publication may have grown into a whole
series of proposals in the Synopsis.
     The Texte synoptique uses double pages to list the proposals,
that is, two facing pages, with the same page number, in four
columns (“première colonne”, “deuxième colonne”, etc).
     At this time, the format  “Art. B 11”  was used to number
proposals to amend the existing rules.  For convenience sake,
this has been converted here to the latter-day format  “Art. 11
Prop. B”.  However, in the parts of the Receuil on non-vascular
cryptogams and on fossils, (also in some of the proposals) 
“Art.” stands for  “a proposal concerning a Rule”, and in such
cases the format  “Art. B 11”  has been converted to “Prop. 11B”
(A, B, etc indicating different proposals on the same topic).
     Both the synopsis of proposals, the Texte synoptique,
and the Proceedings, Compte rendu, are entirely in French,
which means that all proposals were translated into French.
For practical purposes, quotations taken from the Proceedings
are rendered here in English, taken from the corresponding
parts of the Brussels Code.  Where possible numbering here
follows that in the original publication (rather than that in the
Texte synoptique).
 
Pre-Congress, an international Committee, of 31 voting members,
considered the list of proposals drawn up by the Rapporteur and
voted on them (votes included in the third column in the Texte
synoptique).  They also formulated their preferred texts for each
provision (fourth column in the Texte synoptique) and indicated
if it should best be a Principle, Rule, or Recommendation
(Art. 1-7bis to become Principles).  These proposed texts together
made up an almost complete draft Code (the exception being
Art. 66, dealing with the divisive topic of orthography).  Roughly
speaking, the Committee based this on the 1867 lois and a single
set of proposals.
     The Section decided early on to deal only with these proposed
texts (indeed, there were attempts to have the Section accept all
the texts recommended by the Committee, up to Art. 52, en bloc),
unless a different proposal was raised from the floor (it required a
two-third majority to raise a new topic, but a simple majority to
raise an editorial improvement).  This means that the Section did
not deal directly with proposals, but dealt rather with the
Committee’s rendition of a proposal (which could, or could not,
be identical with the proposal).
 
Decisions of the Section were by simple majority (there was a set
of rules-of-procedure).
 

 
 
Abbreviations used

SbFr. = Société botanique de France

 
Committees

There were special Committees established, on, respectively:
•   nomenclature of cryptogams,
•   palaeobotanical nomenclature
 

 
Notes to proposals

•   Belgian-Swiss Bot., Art. 8 (Art. 8 Prop. A) was accepted as
    amended (Underwood), to replace “cohors”  by  “ordo”; a
    parallel motion to replace “divisio”  by  “phylum”  failed.

•   Belgian-Swiss Bot., Art. 10 (Art. 10 Prop. B) was accepted as
    amended (Engler), to mention  “series”.

•   - Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 17bis,
    - Malinvaud, SbFr., Art. 17bis
    - Rouy, Art. 15 (p.p.)  (Art. 17bis Prop. N)
    was accepted as amended (the Committee, compare Prop. H)
    to add  “It is agreed to associate genera, the names of which
    appear in this work, with the descriptions given of them in the
    Genera Plantarum ed. 5 (1754).”  and referred to the Editorial
    Committee.

•   Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 27 (Art. 27 Prop. C) was accepted as
    a Recommendation (the Committee), and as amended
    (Rapporteur), to include  “with the consonants k and w or”  and
    “diacritic signs are suppressed”.

•   Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 33 (Art. 33 Prop. C) was accepted as
    amended (the Committee), to become a Recommendation, and
    to add (compare Prop. E):  “It will be well, in the future, to avoid
    the use of the genitive and the adjectival form of the same name
    to designate two different species of the same genus.”

•   Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 34bis (Art. 34bis Prop. B) was accepted as
    a Recommendation (the Committee), and as amended (Rapporteur),
    to include  “with the consonants k and w or”  and  “diacritic signs
    are suppressed”,  but referred to the Editorial Committee to take
    care of names dedicated to women (Durand).

•   Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 40bis (Art. 40bis Prop. H) was accepted
    and referred (Schinz) to the Editorial Committee, the formula to
    be obligatory while the binomial would be optional.

•   - Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 40ter,
    - Malinvaud, SbFr., Art. 40bis (Art. 40ter Prop. A) was accepted
    and referred (Rapporteur) to the Editorial Committee to be adjusted
    in the light of decisions taken earlier.

•   Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 40qua. (Art. 40qua. Prop. A) was accepted
    and referred (Rapporteur) to the Editorial Committee to be adjusted
    in the light of decisions taken earlier.

•   Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 40qui. (Art. 40qui. Prop. A) was accepted
    and referred (Rapporteur) to the Editorial Committee to be adjusted
    in the light of decisions taken earlier.

•   Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 40sex. (Art. 40sex. Prop. A) was accepted
    as a Recommendation and referred (Rapporteur) to the Editorial
    Committee to be adjusted in the light of decisions taken earlier.

•   - Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 46bis
    - Malinvaud, SbFr., Art. 46bis (Art. 46ter Prop. E)
    was accepted as amended (Rapporteur), to include 
       “An exception is made in the case of the generic names
         mentioned by Linnaeus in the Species Plantarum ed. 1, 1753,
         names which we associate with the descriptions in the Genera
         Plantarum ed. 5, 1754 (See article 17bis)”.

•   - Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 50,
    - Malinvaud, SbFr., Art. 50 (Art. 50 Prop. C)
    was accepted.  Also, a motion (Hochreutiner) was accepted to
    reinstate the second sentence and add  “when they are cited as
    „Hort.“.”  (and then referred to the Editorial Committee).

•   Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 55 (Art. 55 Prop. D): the first paragraph
    was accepted as amended (Rapporteur, Harms), to add  “and his
    choice cannot be modified by subsequent authors”.  The rest was
    replaced by Art. 55 Prop. I.

•   Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 57 (Art. 57 Prop. F) had been amended by
    the Committee to delete the second paragraph and was accepted
    as further amended (‘56’), and referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 58 (Art. 58 Prop. D) was rewritten at the
    Congress to become a Recommendation, accompanied by a new
    Rule.  The new proposed Rule was amended (Rapporteur).  All
    proposed versions were then referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 60 (Art. 60 Prop. I) was accepted as
    amended (Mez), to eliminate paragraph 3°.

•   - Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 65ter (Art. 65ter Prop. A)
    - Hochreutiner, Art. 65ter (Art. 65ter Prop. B)
    were accepted as amended (the Committee), to eliminate
    paragraph 2°; with a suggestion (Hochreutiner) to add in
    paragraph 1°:  “serving for purpose of enumeration”.

•   Britton, Code, Canon 12 (Art. 43 Prop. A) was raised from the
    floor (Britton) and accepted.

•   Brunnthaler (Gen.prop. Prop. II) was accepted as amended
    (Rapporteur [...], Perrot), there to be a Committee, to prepare
    for the next Congress.

•   - Candolle, 1883, Art. 7bis,
    - Kuntze, emend., Art. 7bis,
    - Belgian-Swiss Bot., Art. 7bis,
    - Malinvaud, SbFr., Art. 7bis   (Art. 7bis Prop. A)
    was accepted as amended (Rapporteur, Perrot), to reserve
    provisions on fossil plants and non-vasculair Cryptogams for
    the next Congress (there to be a Committee on fossils also).

•   Hayek, Art. 51 (Art. 51 Prop. M) was raised from the floor
    (Harms), but in vain.

•   Hayek, Art. 68bis (Art. 77 Prop. F) was accepted as amended
    (Harms, Hochreutiner) to read:
       “On and after January 1, 1908, the publication of names of
         new groups will be valid only when they are accompanied
         by a latin diagnosis.”

•   Hochreutiner, Art. 55 (Art. 55 Prop. I) was raised from the floor
    (Rapporteur) and accepted (except for the first paragraph, see
    Art. 55 Prop. D), as a Recommendation.

•   Hochreutiner, Art. 65ter - see Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 65ter

•   Kuntze, emend., Art. 7bis - see Candolle, 1883, Art. 7bis

•   Kuntze, emend., Art. 70, 71, 72b (Art. 94 Prop. A) was accepted
    as amended (Rapporteur), to limit it to the first part of the first
    sentence.

•   - Kuntze, sup., Art. 73 (15.)
    - Kuntze, maturus, § 19 g  (Art. 83 Prop. A)
    was amended (Rapporteur), to be combined with Art. 47
    paragraph 1°, and thus accepted as a Recommendation and
    referred to the Editorial Committee.

•   Malinvaud, SbFr., Art. 7bis - see Candolle, 1883, Art. 7bis

•   Malinvaud, SbFr., Art. 17bis - see Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 17bis

•   Malinvaud, SbFr., Art. 40bis - see Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 40ter

•   Malinvaud, SbFr., Art. 42 (Art. 42 Prop. E) was raised from the
    floor (Hua) and accepted as amended, to eliminate illustrations
    unaccompanied by diagnoses (Britton), to add the adjective
    “indelible”  to  “autographs” (Rouy, the Committee), to let
    illustrations with analyses be equivalent to diagnoses (Durant),
    to allow exsiccata only when accompanied by diagnoses (the
    Commission, Goethart), and to disallow illustrations without
    diagnoses for the future (Maire).

•   Malinvaud, SbFr., Art. 46bis - see Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 46bis

•   Malinvaud, SbFr., Art. 50 - see Belg.-Swiss Bot., Art. 50

•   Rendle, Brit. Mus., Art. 66 (Art. 66 Prop. I) was raised from
    the floor (Prain) and was accepted as amended (Maire, Gillot),
    replacing  “grammatical”  by “orthographical”.  It was proposed
    (Hallier) to retain the sentence starting  “The liberty of ...”  but
    as a Recommendation.

•   Saccardo, Diagn., III (p.p.) (Art. 90 Prop. A) was accepted as
    a Recommendation, in a special Appendix.

•   Zoolog. Code, Art. 56 & 57 (Art. 89 Prop. A) was accepted as a
    Recommendation (Fedde), in a special Appendix (Rapporteur).

•   Zoolog. Code, App. D & E (Art. 91 Prop. A) was accepted as
    amended (Rapporteur), to become a Recommendation, in a special
    Appendix:
       “Authors are asked to indicate clearly and precisely the scale
        of the figures which they publish.”

•   Zoolog. Code, Art. 59 (Art. 93 Prop. A) was accepted as a
    Recommendation, in a special Appendix.

 
 
Motions from the floor and other decisions

•   It was decided to admit a late set of proposals by Hallier for
    consideration.

•   Art. 6: it was accepted to add  “for all groups”  after  “Latin”
    (the Committee).

•   Art. 9: a motion from the floor (Borodin) was accepted to
    replace  “variations”  by  “forms”.

•   Art. 13 to become a Recommendation (Rapporteur).

•   Art. 14: it was decided to replace  “cultivated species”  by
    “cultivated plants”  (Errera), and to delete the last three
    paragraphs (Rapporteur).  [In the Texte synoptique it had
    been suggested to demote the last three paragraphs, to
    become a Recommendation.]

•   Art. 15 was referred to the Editorial Committee to take
    account of the decision on Art. 57, 58 and the proposals of
    Hallier.

•   Art. 18 to become a Recommendation (the Committee).

•   Art. 19 to become a Recommendation (the Committee).

•   Art. 29 to become a Recommendation (the Committee).

•   Art. 30 to become a Recommendation (the Committee).

•   Art. 31: a belated proposal (Hallier) on using  “specific epithet”
    instead of  “specific name”  was discussed and rejected.  [   ]

•   Art. 32 to become a Recommendation (the Committee).

•   Art. 40 was referred to the Editorial Committee to be adjusted
    in the light of decisions taken earlier.

•   Art. 41-46 were referred (Rapporteur) to the Editorial Committee
    for special review.

•   Art. 47 to become a Recommendation (the Committee).  [...]

•   Art. 62 was referred (Harms) to the Editorial Committee to be
    adjusted to accord with the decision taken on Art. 59, for example
    by adding the adjective  “valid”  to  “species” in line 7.

•   Art. 67 to become a Recommendation (the Committee).

•   Art. 68 to become a Recommendation (the Committee).

•   A motion from the floor (Hackel) was accepted to include a
    definition of Rules (which are retroactive) and Recommendations
    (which are not), the Editorial Committee to base this on the
    definition in the Texte synoptique (“11”) and to place this among
    the Principles.

•   A motion from the floor (Schwerin) was accepted to have the
    Editorial Committee add Examples everywhere, showing how
    to do it right, and what is wrong or to be avoided.

 
 
 
 
 
    2016 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel
              all rights reserved