Preface 1961

P R E F A C E

In general, the procedure adopted in the preparation of this “Montreal Code” has
been the same as that followed for the Stockholm and Paris Codes. Although there
was still a relatively high number of proposals submitted to the IXth International
Botanical Congress, held at Montreal in August 1959, I think that we can now state
not only that they resulted in less far-reaching changes than those made at Stockholm
and Paris (I have already commented upon this in my preface to the Synopsis of
Proposals submitted to the Congress), but we may say also that the Congress has been
even more conservative than before in accepting proposed amendments. The proposals
concerning the question of possible nomina specifica conservanda c.q. rejicienda did
not result in any legislative action but were followed by an attempt to assess first
the real scope of the problem before changing the rules. This may seem a minor
step forward. In fact I believe it is the first real progress that has been made towards
solving this difficult problem. When this study is completed, it will be possible to
see the real size of the problem and this is the first necessity for any future action.
Most of us are willing to do something if it is needed but we must know what we
are going to do before changing the Code in an essential way. The study of the
names of economically important plants is now in progress thanks to financial support
from various sources. It is hoped to have it ready in 1964 before the Edinburgh
Congress.

The results of the deliberations at Montreal are set out in the report on the
proceedings of the Nomenclature Section, presented by the Bureau of Nomenclature
at the Congress and printed in volume 3 of the Proceedings of the IXth International
Botanical Congress and reprinted as vol. 20 of Regnum Vegetabile. Thanks to the
Montreal Congress Committee it has been possible for this report to reach all those
entitled to the preliminary vote and we certainly owe a debt of gratitude to the
Montreal Congress for the liberal and easy way in which they have enabled us to
do our work. As before, this report on the proceedings has been the basis of the
work of the Editorial Committee.

The Code as presented now is based on the decisions reached by the Nomenclature
Section of the IXth International Botanical Congress, Montreal August 1959. These
decisions were officially adopted by the plenary session of that Congress on 29 August
1959 (see Taxon 8: 245. 1959) and published in the proceedings of the Congress
as mentioned above. An abstract of these decisions was published in Taxon 8: 247—
254 (1959).

As before, the Nomenclature Section decided that the Code should be published
in the English, French and German languages. The three texts are all official, but,
should there be any inconsistency between the versions, it is agreed to regard the
English one arbitrarily as correct. The English text has been drawn up and agreed

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code

– i –

______________________________________________________________________

upon by all the members of the Editorial Committee, the English speaking members
having the ultimate decision in matters of grammar or idiom.

The Editorial Committee met at Brussels in the course of November 1960 at the
kind invitation of Dr Robyns. The two United States members of the Committee
were enabled to attend thanks to a grant made by the National Science Foundation,
which is gratefully acknowledged here. Notwithstanding the circumstance that the
real changes in the Code were left at a minimum by the Congress, it was clear that
there was still plenty of purely editorial work left which could not have been achieved
without such a meeting.

The French text has been prepared by the same subcommittee as that of the Paris
Code: Dr Baehni, Dr Robyns (chairman of the subcommittee), Dr Rousseau and
Dr de Vilmorin. The final draft of this French version was prepared at a meeting
held in Brussels in March 1961.

The German text was again under the care of Dr Schulze in close collaboration
with his colleague Dr G. Buchheim from Berlin-Dahlem. The Editorial Committee is
very grateful to Dr Buchheim for his continued help and interest in its work, which
was this time even greater than before because of his work in drawing up the new
Appendix II.

It was technically impossible this time to incorporate an unofficial Spanish trans-
lation and the same applies still to the possible inclusion of a Russian version. The
Paris Code was translated into the Russian language by Dr Y. I. Prokhanov under
the auspices of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, edited by Dr J. Linczevski and
published in J uly 1959. A partial translation into the Czech language was published
by Dr J. Dostal in his Botanická Nomenklatura, Prague 1957. We hope that the
present Code will again soon be published in these versions.

As stated above the main body of the Code was not amended to any considerable
degree. In order to facilitate the use of the Code the Committee decided to retain as
far as possible the numbers of the Articles and Recommendations of the Paris Code.
A few minor rearrangements had to be made in one or two sections, but on the
whole the subject matter will be found in the same places as before.

Some of the examples in the previous edition of the Code have been deleted
because they were found to be unsuitable or inaccurate, and the same is true of
others attached to accepted amendments. At their meeting in Brussels the Editorial
Committee decided that it would be desirable to publish the reasons why these
examples had been removed or not adopted since, if these were not understood:
mistaken conclusions might be drawn; this has happened occasionally in the past.
Mr Ross and Dr Stafleu were asked to prepare this material, which will be published
in Taxon after it has been agreed by the whole Committee.

Appendix I (Names of hybrids and some special categories) was amended slightly
by the Committee for Hybrids (see Taxon 8: 254. 1959), but it retains the same
status as before as an integral part of the Code.
12

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code

– ii –

______________________________________________________________________

The former Appendix II (Special provisions concerning fossil plants) is no more
found in this Code. By the unanimous wish of the palaeobotanists present at Mon-
treal, it was decided to incorporate these ‘special provisions’ where necessary in the
main body of the Code. This is certainly a great step forward since it is clear that
in general the naming of fossil plants should follow the same lines as that of recent
ones.

The present Appendix II is a new one: Nomina familiarum conservanda. The
Montreal Congress decided to incorporate such a list in the Code, for the present only
of Angiospermae. The task of drawing up this list was assigned to a Subcommittee
for Family names of the Committee for Spermatophyta composed of Dr R. C. Bak-
huizen van den Brink, Dr G. Buchheim (secretary), Dr A. Burkart, Dr R. S. Cowan
and Dr C. E. Wood. Dr Burkart resigned shortly after his appointment and was
replaced by Mr J. E. Dandy. The work of the Committee found a basis in the
preliminary work done by A. A. Bullock (see Taxon 8: 154, 189. 1959). The Con-
gress accepted the principles according to which the list by Bullock was compiled:
e.g. that the names are to be retained in all cases, with priority over unlisted names
and that A. L. de Jussieu, Genera Plantarum 1789, was to be taken as starting point
for purposes of the list. The subcommittee, under the stimulating guidance of Dr G.
Buchheim, successfully tackled its rather large task and fully deserves our sincere
gratitude.

Appendix III (Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda) shows important
editorial differences as compared with the Paris version. I pointed out in my foreword
to the Paris Code that the section dealing with Spermatophyta especially was far
from ideal. The Montreal Congress decided to adopt in principle the revised version
proposed by Rickett and Stafleu (Taxon 8: 213. 1959) subject to the approval of
the Committee for Spermatophyta. The other sections, dealing with the “cryptogams”
and fossil plants are now presented along the same lines. The secretaries of the
committees for the various groups have again devoted much time and energy to the
composition of these lists and their labours are most gratefully acknowledged here.

The former Appendices IV and V had a status different from that of the other
ones. This is expressed in this edition of the Code by calling them “Guides”’ instead
of Appendices. The Guide for the determination of types was slightly modified in
order to bring it into agreement with the changes adopted at Montreal. The Guide
to the citation of botanical literature has been reprinted verbatim.

The special character of Appendices II and III makes it impossible to print them
immediately behind Appendix I and in front of the Guides. A reference to them has
heen inserted in the proper place, and the result is that now all the elements of the
English, French and German versions are printed together followed by these two
bulky Appendices.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code

– iii –

______________________________________________________________________

The Subject Index of the previous Code met with much approval. The present
index is in many respects identical with its predecessor: it has been drawn up in
three languages but the basic language is English. This means that words that are
sufficiently alike in the various languages are not repeated.

Finally I wish to express my deep appreciation of the work done by so many
people towards editing this Code. This editing is in many ways a common enterprise
of a rather large group of botanists. Foremost among them are certainly my col-
leagues of the Editorial Committee who have all taken a fair share of the work. They
were all ready to undertake such extra duties as proof reading, preparing special
reports etc. etc. All this work was done in the most friendly possible spirit of true
international cooperation. Special mention must be made of Dr F. A. Stafleu and
Miss W. Keuken, who prepared all the material for the various meetings and dis-
cussions in such an excellent way that the work of the others was considerably
lightened. Without this careful and intelligent preparation of the material the results
achieved could not have been attained.

The Committees on Botanical Nomenclature as appointed by the Botanical Con-
gress are united in the framework of the International Union of Biological Sciences
in the International Commission for Botanical Nomenclature. This Commission
constitutes a “Permanent Service” of the I.U.B.S. and as such it receives important
moral and financial support from this Union and through it from the International
Council of Scientific Unions and U.N.E.S.C.O. Annual subsidies finance the work
of the various committees, and a special grant was given towards the publication
of the Code. Our appreciation of this liberal and generous help is as sincere as
ever. Without it this international effort which is called botanical nomenclature
would not be as successful as, I trust, it is.

______________________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961 — Montreal Code

– iv –

______________________________________________________________________

[ to body of the 1961, Montreal Code ]