PREFACE
 

The most striking difference between this new "Berlin Code" and previous
editions of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature is that the text is
in English only, lacking the French and German versions that have been a
feature of the International Code since the very first, the Vienna Code of 1905.
This reflects a recommendation made by the Nomenclature Section of the
Berlin Congress, which also encouraged publication of the principal text in
other languages. A French text is currently in preparation and a German and a
Spanish are being considered. In other respects the "Berlin Code" will look
quite familiar to those who have used recent editions of the Code. The same
system for numbering paragraphs of Articles, Recommendations and Exam-
ples is employed as in the previous "Sydney Code". One new Article and sever-
al new Recommendations appear, but, as the Article is the last in the Code
(Art. 76), a shift in the numbering of Articles and Recommendations has been
avoided. Certain paragraphs have necessarily been given new numbers, when
new material was inserted ahead of them. The Berlin Congress accepted or
referred to the Editorial Committee considerably more proposals than did the
Leningrad or Sydney Congress – over 135 as against fewer than 100. As has
become usual in recent Congresses, most of these proposals did little, however,
to alter the substance of the Code, merely refining existing provisions.

Perhaps the major change in the new Code is the extension of the provisions
for the conservation of the names of species. In addition to "species of major
economic importance", conservation of species names is now possible in two
other situations. The more general is where a name has been widely and per-
sistently used for a taxon or taxa not including its type (Art. 69 situations);
henceforth conservation will be permitted in such cases as an alternative to
rejection. The other is merely a logical extension of the long-standing option to
conserve a generic name with a particular type, in that it permits conservation
of the type of a species name that indicates the type of a conserved generic
name. Thus, not only may Amaryllis be conserved with A. belladonna indicated
as type, but the type of A. belladonna itself may also being conserved – as is,
indeed, happening.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– i –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Two Articles (66 and 67) have been deleted from the Code. These dealt with
illegitimate names and represented something of a leftover from former Codes
in which the circumscription rather than the type method had prevailed. The
new Article (76) that appears in the Code is a transformation of the former
Recommendation 75A dealing with the gender of generic names. The change
is logical in view of the fact that wrong gender terminations are errors to be
corrected under Art. 75.3.

In terms of text changes, the portion of the Code which has undergone the
greatest revision is that relating to typification (Arts. 7-10). Most strikingly, the
"Guide for the Determination of Types", which in previous Codes formed an
unnumbered appendix at the end of the text, has been incorporated in the
main body of the Code, principally by the addition of Rec. 7B and a new Note
and paragraph in Art. 7. Five additions to the rules on types and typification
have, however, been introduced. The Code now makes it clear that for a lecto-
typification (or neotypification) to have priority, the element chosen must be
directly cited including the term "type" or an equivalent, and hence mere exclu-
sion of all other elements does not constitute priorable lectotypification. Neo-
typification is now permitted in cases where all the surviving original material
can be shown to be taxonomically different from a destroyed holotype or
previously designated lectotype. The provision that existed for a type to be a
description under certain circumstances – something that many felt amounted
to a repudiation of the type method – has been deleted from the Code. From 1
Jan 1990, the place of preservation of the type of the name of a species or
infraspecific taxon, including a designated lectotype or neotype, must be speci-
fied. Finally, and also from 1 Jan 1990, the mandatory indication of the holo-
type of a name of a new taxon will require use of the word "typus" or "holo-
typus" or one of their equivalents in a modern language. Art. 10, dealing with
the typification of the names of genera and subdivisions of genera, has also
been clarified and the previous exclusion of illustrations as types of names
conserved under Art. 10.3 has been removed.

Also relevant to typification is the provision that all nomenclatural actions
regulated by the Code must appear in effectively published works in order to
be taken into consideration. This applies, not only to lectotypification and
neotypification, but also to actions such as the uniting of taxa bearing names of
equal priority or choosing between homonyms with equal priority.

Same of the rules on valid publication of names have been clarified. In ad-
dition to the new obligation, from 1990, to use the word typus or an equivalent
when publishing names of new taxa (referred to above), the requirements prior
to that date have been redefined. Other clarifications have been made con-
cerning the association of an epithet with the generic or specific name in a new

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– ii –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

combination, the degree of precision required when referring to the place of
publication of a basionym, and the conditions of validation by means of a de-
scriptio generico-specifica.

Other changes of note in the present Code include matters relating to illegi-
timacy, orthography, and to the naming of hybrids. The definition of what
constitutes a nomenclaturally superfluous and hence illegitimate name under
Art. 63 has been clarified (and made less all embracing than some had con-
sidered it to be) by specifying that a name is superfluous only if the corres-
ponding taxon originally included the previously designated lectotype (or the
holotype, or all syntypes) of a name which ought to have been adopted under
the rules. In addition to the new Article on the gender of generic names re-
ferred to above, a few relatively minor modifications have been made in the
rules and recommendations dealing with orthography. It was made clear that
the ranks of taxa of hybrids (nothotaxa) are the same as the corresponding
ranks of non-hybrid taxa, and that where an inappropriate nothotaxon rank is
used the name is not invalid but merely incorrect and could be employed later
in a taxonomic context in which the rank was appropriate.

The format of the Appendices listing conserved and rejected names as
evolved over the years. A major revision of Appendix III was carried out after
the Sydney Congress and the criteria upon which this was based were des-
cribed in Taxon (33: 310-316. 1984). The same criteria have been in general
applied in the present edition. Moreover, those entries which involve ortho-
graphic variants have been brought into line with Art. 75 which specifies that
only one variant is a validly published name. Consequently those entries in-
volving rejected original spellings, formerly prefixed by "(V)", have been de-
leted. Instead, such cases in which a later spelling is conserved are indicated by
the phrase "orth. cons." Another change in the Appendices is the splitting of
Appendix II (nomina familiarum conservanda) into two, IIA dealing with Fungi
and Pteridophyta, in which family names are now conserved only over listed
rejected names in the same manner as has always applied to generic names.
Appendix IIB covering Bryophyta and Spermatophyta continues in the format
of the previous Appendix II with the listed names conserved over all synonyms,
and with no rejected names listed. For the first time nomina specifica conser-
vanda are listed, forming the new Appendix IIIB (whereby the former Ap-
pendix III, nomina generica conservanda, becomes Appendix IIIA).

The Code is printed in two different type sizes, the Recommendations, Notes,
and Examples (as well as the text of the Appendices and Indices) being set in
smaller type. This reflects, so far as the main text of the Code is concerned, the
distinction between the rules (primarily the Articles) and the material that
explains the implications of the rules (the Notes and Examples) or provides
advice on good nomenclatural practice (the Recommendations). The nature of

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– iii –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

Articles, Recommendations and Examples seems to be well understood, but,
from experience in reviewing proposals to amend the Code, it appears that the
role of Notes is less clear. Like an Article, a Note in the Code states something
that is mandatory; it differs from an Article, however, in that a Note does not
introduce any new rule or concept, but merely spells out something that may
not be evident to the user but is provided for elsewhere in the Code.

The procedures for producing this edition of the Code have followed the
pattern that has been well established since the Stockholm Congress of 1950.
Published proposals for amendment, with technical comments by the Rappor-
teurs and various relevant reports, were assembled in a Synopsis of Proposals
(Taxon 36: 174-281. 1987). Results of the Preliminary Mail Vote on these
proposals, a strictly advisory but very helpful expression of opinion, were made
available at registration for the Nomenclature Section of the XIV International
Botanical Congress, in the "Dachgarten" of the International Congress Centre
in Berlin (West). The Section met from July 20-24, just before the regular
sessions of the Congress, and made decisions on the 336 proposals before it,
accepting some 72 and referring another 63 to the Editorial Committee for
modification of the Code. These decisions were adopted by resolution of the
closing plenary session of the Congress on August 1 and became official at that
time. A list of them appeared in Taxon (36: 858-868. 1987), along with the
results of the preliminary mail vote. The full Report of the Section, including
the essence of the debates and comments made during the deliberations, is
being published in the journal Englera. A preliminary transcript of the com-
plete tape records of the nomenclature sessions, prepared by Dan Nicolson
and John McNeill, was available to all members of the Editorial Committee at
their meeting in January 1988.

It is the duty of the Editorial Committee, elected by the Section (and, by tradi-
tion, from among those present for the discussions), to incorporate the de-
cisions of the Congress into the Code and to make in it whatever strictly edi-
torial changes are desirable for smooth, consistent, accurate, and clear reading.
The composition of the Editorial Committee usually changes slightly at each
Congress, and this was also the case on this occasion. Ed Voss, Rapporteur-
général for the Sydney Congress and hence Chairman of the previous Editorial
Committee, did not wish to continue in this capacity at Berlin, and Werner
Greuter, vice-rapporteur at Sydney, was there appointed Rapporteur-général
for the Berlin Congress. As such he served as Chairman of this Editorial
Committee. The new Vice-rapporteur and Secretary of the Committee was
John McNeill, a member of the previous Editorial Committee. The Committee
was fortunate in being able to continue to benefit from Ed Voss’s experience in
that he agreed to serve as a member. The Committee benefited enormously by

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– iv –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

being able to draw on the wisdom and experience of Frans Stafleu, Vice-rap-
porteur and Secretary of the Editorial Committee from 1954 to 1964, Rappor-
teur-général and Chairman of the Committee from 1964 to 1979, and President
of the Nomenclature Section at Berlin. Returning as a full member of the
Committee, and with the insight of having chaired the Nomenclature Section
meetings in almost their entirety, Frans Stafleu provided sage advice on very
many occasions, particularly when it proved necessary to interpret somewhat
conflicting decisions made by the Section. The two new members, Riclef Grol-
le and David Hawksworth, joined most effectively in the work of the Commit-
tee.

After circulation of a draft of the text of the new Code, the Editorial Commit-
tee met at the "Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem"
from January 3-7, 1988. All members of the Committee were present for this
essential meeting that thrashes out the clearest and most concise way to ex-
press in the Code the decisions of the Nomenclature Section and deals with a
myriad of editorial details, essential in seeking clarity and consistency in an
international work, which should not necessarily follow the editorial practices
of any particular country or language group. In this context, it should be ex-
plained that this edition of the Code, like its predecessors, follows, in cases of
discrepancy, British rather than American spelling of English words. In this
edition the Committee has adopted the practice of italicizing all scientific
names up to the rank of family (the ranks for which priority is mandatory), but
not those at higher ranks. The Editorial Committee recognizes that complete
clarity and consistency are hardly achievable and is aware of several instances
of imprecise, conflicting, or otherwise unsatisfactory wording in the Code.
Resolution of these is not always in its power as an editorial matter. Any effort
to resolve certain points could be interpreted as extending the operation of the
Code or as restricting it, depending upon one’s reading of the present text.
Failure, therefore, to make a change at a point of ambiguity does not neces-
sarily mean that we consider the present text to be satisfactory. Some matters
must await the next Congress!

We have continued our effort, to which major attention was given in the
Leningrad and Sydney editions, to be consistent within the Code regarding
bibliographic style and details, in a manner which is agreeable and non-con-
fusable to all users. Many aids are now available which did not exist years ago.
While none of them provides all the answers to achieving standardization in a
document which deals with all groups of plants and an incredible diversity of
literature, we have made heavy use of "TL-2" (Taxonomic Literature, ed. 2);
"B-P-H" (Botanico-Periodicum-Huntianum); the Draft Index of Author Ab-
breviations compiled at The Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; and the
Catalogue des Périodiques de la Bibliothèque des Conservatoire et Jardin
botaniques de la Ville de Genève.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– v –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

In addition to the preparation of the principal text of the Code carried out by
all members of the Committee at their meeting in Berlin and subsequently by
reviewing two revised drafts, other portions of the Code have been produced
by particular members of the Committee with help from others. The new
Index, which represents a substantial revision of, and we hope improvement
on, previous versions, was largely the work of Ed Voss; Appendices II and III
were updated by the following: Paul Silva (Algae), Vincent Demoulin (Fungi),
Gea Zijlstra (Utrecht, Bryophyta), Bill Chaloner (Fossils), and Dan Nicolson
and John McNeill (other groups). The Committee is particularly grateful to
Gea Zijlstra, Secretary of the Committee for Bryophyta, for providing the
entire update of the Bryophyte entries, to R. K. Brummitt (Kew) who checked
the whole Spermatophyta entries and provided substantial comments, and also
to the Secretaries of the Committees for Fungi and Lichens and for Pterido-
phyta (R. Korf and R. E. G. Pichi-Sermolli) for their great help with the
entries for their respective groups. The final editing of the whole text, including
the appendices and indices, was undertaken by Werner Greuter in close con-
tact with John McNeill and Dan Nicolson.

The speedy publication of the Berlin Code and its relatively modest price are
due to a large extent to the fact that the text of the previous edition was avail-
able on magnetic tape, in the original phototype format, and that it was pos-
sible to transfer it to a personal computer at the IAPT headquarters in Berlin
for further editing. Some of the additional matter, in particular many of the
new entries to the Appendices, was prepared in Edinburgh, Utrecht and
Washington and transmitted to Berlin on magnetic support (floppy disks).
Offset-ready copy of the present Code was produced directly in Berlin by
means of a laser printer after suitable reformating. Although a highly sophisti-
cated device, a laser printer is not quite as versatile as professional phototype-
setting equipment, which accounts for some minor awkwardness such as the
replacement of single by double quotation marks throughout the text and the
less than perfect representation of the identity sign used in the Appendices.
Reformating the text of the Appendices with their semi-tabular layout seemed
at first to pose insoluble problems, and we are much indebted to Mr. Rolf
König, Berlin, who devised and wrote the required software at no cost.

The Berlin Code is the first volume of the Regnum Vegetabile series to be
published by Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein/Taunus. It is our pleasure to
acknowledge the helpful and amiable attitude of Mr. Sven Koeltz in what we
trust will prove the start of a long and fruitful collaboration.

In addition to those who have helped to make possible this new edition of the
Code, botanical nomenclature depends on the scores of botanists who serve on
the Permanent Nomenclature Committees that work continuously between
Congresses, dealing principally with proposals for conservation or rejection,

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– vi –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

and those others who are members of Special Committees, reviewing and
seeking solutions to the problems assigned to them by the Nomenclature Sec-
tion of the Congress. Botanical Nomenclature is remarkable for the large
number of taxonomists who voluntarily work so effectively and for such long
hours, to the immeasurable benefit of all their colleagues who must use plant
names and on whose behalf this word of sincere thanks is expressed.

The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature is published under the
ultimate authority of the International Botanical Congresses. Provisions for
modifications of it are detailed in Division III of the Code and are described
above. An account of the international organization of botanical nomenclature
appears in J. McNeill & W. Greuter, Botanical nomenclature (IUBS Monogr.
Ser. 2: 3-26. 1987). The various permanent nomenclature committees listed in
Division III operate under the auspices of the International Association for
Plant Taxonomy (lAPT), which is itself a Section of the International Union of
Biological Sciences (IUBS). The secretaries of these committees, along with
additional ex officio and elected members, constitute the General Committee,
which represents botanical nomenclature between Congresses and serves also
as the Commission on Nomenclature of Plants of IUBS.

The truly international and cooperative nature which characterizes the nomen-
clature committees, the broad democratic way in which the Code is subject to
modification, and the common consent by which its provisions are accepted
throughout the world, all make it a pleasure as well as a privilege for each of us
to serve in these endeavours.

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– vii –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

                        IMPORTANT DATES IN THE CODE

DATES UPON WHICH PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF THE CODE BECOME

EFFECTIVE

ARTICLES INVOLVING DATES APPLICABLE TO THE MAIN TAXONOMIC GROUPS

ARTICLES DEFINING THE DATES OF CERTAIN WORKS
 

Art. 13.1(e), (f); 13.4; 13.5; 23.6(c); Rec. 32A.l; Art. 41 Note 1; Intr. to App. II

______________________________________________________________________ 

    International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1988  —  Berlin Code

– viii –

text: © 1988, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

______________________________________________________________________ 

[ to body of the 1988, Berlin Code ]