CONVERSION TABLE, XI IBC (1969)
Conversion table for proposals-to-amend-the-Code
submitted to the XI IBC,
the 1969, Seattle Congress;
proposals as published to proposals as
treated at the Congress.
Congress action based on (by permission of the IAPT):
Harold E. Moore, Frans A. Stafleu & Edward G. Voss
“XI
International Botanical Congress: final mail vote and Congress
action on nomenclature proposals”
(in Taxon 19: 43-51. 1970).
But adjusted here and there according to the
proceedings by Frans A.
Stafleu and Edward G. Voss (Regnum Veg. 81. 1972
[first &
second half])
Links go to the relevant page of a PDF, a local copy
(copyright IAPT).
However, this may be off one page (browser-dependent; some browsers do not
count the page added by JSTOR).
See also:
•
Congress action
•
list of proposals
Proposal as submitted
|
Synopsis
|
Congress
action |
Committee
advice |
[ 001-100 do not exist, except 009 (from the previous Congress) ]
* = proposal published too late to allow comments in the Synopsis.
Abbreviations used:
Crwh. & Iltis = Crosswhite & Iltis
Committees
Special committees (to report to the XII IBC) to be set up:
Special Committee for Articles 69, 70, 71.
To it were referred:
-
Prop. 119 by Bullock (Art. 69 Prop. B),
-
Prop. 177 by Harrison (Art. 71 Prop. A)
Special Committee on Typification and Priority of Names of Taxa
above the Level of Family.
To it were referred:
-
Prop. 278-280 by Linczevski
(Art. 10 Prop. F, Art. 14 Prop. G
and Gen.prop. Prop.B)
Special Committee on
Superfluous Names
[re-established].
To it were referred:
-
Prop. 139 by McVaugh
(Art. 63 Prop. A),
-
Prop. 155-156,
163 by Tryon
(Art. 7 unassigned proposal,
Art. 7 Prop. K,
Art. 63 Prop. B),
-
Prop. 276-277 by Brummitt
(Art. 63 Prop. D-E>).
Hybrids
Art. 3 Prop. B had been referred to the Committee for Hybrids
which replaced it with Art. 3 Prop. C:
this was referred to the
Editoral Committee:
“The
principal ranks of hybrid taxa are, in ascending sequence,
interspecific hybrid and intergeneric hybrid; their nomenclature
is governed by the general provisions of this Code. They have
the same ranks as species and genus respectively.”
“Note.
The term interspecific hybrid, whenever used in the
Code, refers to a hybrid between species of the same genus”.
The Committee for hybrids brought a motion
from the floor (Art. 28
Prop. D) which
was accepted, to add to Art. 20:
“The name
of a graft-chimaera of any rank must not be the
same as the name of a sexual hybrid of the same rank.”
The Committee for Hybrids suggested to add in Art. 37
“except
for the names of a hybrid group,
which is a condensed formula or
its equivalent (see Art. 40)”
Upon presentation of
the report of the Committee for Hybrids, the
Section took the following actions
on the proposals concerned with
hybrids:
a) It was voted to retain all material on hybrids in Appendix I.
b) The report was referred to the Editorial Committee, except
1) The use of the phrase “collective epithet” in place of
“specific epithet” was approved – see
Prop. 211 by Yeo
(Art. 23 Prop. C).
2) The deletion of Rec. H.5A (per
Prop. 169 by Tryon
(Rec. H.5A Prop. A)) was approved.
3)
The text in the report proposed as a substitute for
Art. H.5
Prop. E was accepted:
“An epithet
published before 1975
subordinate to the binary name
of a recognized hybrid
but at a rank other than that of nothomorph
is treated as if published
at the rank of nothomorph, the name of
the original author being cited,
followed by an indication of the
original status
(cf. Art. 50).
Example: Carduus mulliganii
× orthocephalus Wallr. nm.
Boivin (pro forma).”
A motion (Demaret) was accepted as to the following portion only
and referred to the Editorial Committee for cross-references:
“All particular rules for hybrids
and cultivated plants shall be
grouped in special appendices
with cross references in the
general articles concerned,
so that these rules are coherently
united in one place to avoid treatment in several places.”
Notes
•
Prop. [sn-6] by Burtt (Art. 43 Prop. A)
was
accepted as amended
(Nicolson), to include
“and infrageneric names”.
•
Prop. [sn-7] by Korf & Rogers (Art. 7 Prop. A):
the term
schizotype rejected,
but the sense of the proposal referred to the
Editorial Committee for inclusion
in the Guide for types.
•
Prop. [sn-12] by Bullock (Art. 43 Prop. B)
was
accepted, but to
be brought into accord with Prop. A by the Editorial Committee.
•
Prop. 107 by Morton (Art. 26 Prop. A)
was amended (Fosberg)
and referred to the Editorial Committee,
Art. 19,
22,
26 to be
adjusted so that
“automatically created tautonymous names
(autonyms) in any rank are not transferable”.
•
Prop. 124 by Bullock (Art. 14 Prop. D)
was
accepted as amended
(Cronquist),
to just delete (not replace) the third sentence.
•
Prop. 128 by Greuter (Art. 29 Prop. A)
was
accepted in principle,
but to incorporate rejection of Gandoger’s
Flora Europea, and
referred to the Editorial Committee to find a place in the last two
paragraphs of Article 33.
•
Prop. 159 by Tryon (Art. 14 Prop. E):
the first sentence was
referred to the Editorial Committee,
the second sentence was
referred to a Special Committee.
•
Prop. 189 by Brummitt & Chater (Art. 26 Prop. C)
was accepted
to accord with
Prop. 186 by Wood & Webster (Art. 26 Prop. B).
•
Prop. 211 by Yeo (Art. 23 Prop. C)
was
referred to the Editorial
Committee, the Section having voted to
accept the words
“collective epithet” in place of
“specific epithet” for hybrids.
•
Prop. 250 by Yeo (Art. 29 Prop. D)
was accepted as printed in the
Synopsis, not including the Note printed only
in the original
publication.
•
Prop. 254 by Brummitt (Art. 33 Prop. C)
was rejected, but a
motion (Stearn) was accepted, to place this on the agenda of the
General Committee, either an interim study or a new Special
committee.
•
Prop. 259 by Brummitt (Art. 45 Prop. B)
was accepted, but with
the Editorial Committee to scrutinize.
•
Prop. 278 by Linczevski (Art. 10 Prop. F) was
cause for a new
Committee to be established
to study the typification of taxa above
the rank of family. This proposal was referred to it, and then
rejected.
•
Prop. 281 by Yeo (Rec. 46C Prop. C)
was
accepted as amended
(Donk) to delete the parenthetical phrase
“(with or without
justification)”.
•
Prop. 284 by Komárek (App. IV Prop. A)
was referred to the
Culture Section of the I.A.M.S.
on advice of the Committee for
Algae.
Motions from the floor
• Art. 3 Prop. C was referred to the Editorial Committee.
•
A motion from the floor (McVaugh) was accepted
as amended
(Proskauer), to reword Art. 8:
“The author
who first designates a lectotype or a neotype must
be followed, but his choice is superseded if the holotype or, in
the case of a neotype, any of the original material is rediscovered;
it may also be superseded if it can be shown that the choice was
based upon a misinterpretation of the
protologue or was made
arbitrarily.”
• Art. 28 Prop. D was accepted.
•
A motion from the floor (Tryon) was accepted to refer to the
Editorial Committee any residue of action on the Code overlooked
by the Section.
This page: 2014 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel
all rights reserved