Preface 2000

Preface

The rules that govern scientific naming in botany (including phycology and
mycology) are revised at Nomenclature Section meetings at succes-
sive International Botanical Congresses. The present edition of the Inter-
national code of botanical nomenclature embodies the decisions of the
XVI International Botanical Congress held in St Louis in 1999 and super-
sedes the Tokyo Code, published six years ago subsequent to the XV In-
ternational Botanical Congress in Yokohama. It is written entirely in
(British) English. The Tokyo Code has been translated into Chinese,
French, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, and Slovak; it is therefore
anticipated that the St Louis Code, too, will become available in several
languages in due course.

The St Louis Code does not differ substantially in overall presentation and
arrangement from the Tokyo Code, and the numbering of Articles and
Appendices remains the same, although there have been a few changes in
the numbering of paragraphs, Recommendations and Examples. In the
Tokyo Code extensive renumbering had taken place, and therefore its
preface included a tabulation comparing the placement of its provisions
with those of the preceding (Berlin) edition. This time, no such tabulation
is included.

The text of the Code uses three different sizes of print, the Recommenda-
tions and Notes being set in smaller type than the Articles, and the Exam-
ples and footnotes in smaller type than the Recommendations and Notes.
The type sizes reflect the distinction between the rules which are manda-
tory (Articles), complementary information or advice (Notes and Recom-
mendations), and explanatory material (Examples and Footnotes). A Note
has binding effect but does not introduce any new provision or concept,
rather, it explains something that may not at first be readily apparent but is
covered explicitly or implicitly elsewhere in the Code. Some Examples,
which were deliberately agreed by a Nomenclature Section, contain mate-
rial which is not fully, or not explicitly, covered in the rules. Such “voted
examples” are prefixed by an asterisk (*). If, by a change of the
corresponding provision in a subsequent edition of the Code, a “voted
example” becomes fully covered, the asterisk is removed.

vii

_______________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — Saint Louis Code

– i –

_______________________________________________________________

Preface

As in the previous edition, scientific names under the jurisdiction of the
Code, irrespective of rank, are consistently printed in italic type. The Code
sets no binding standard in this respect, as typography is a matter of edito-
rial style and tradition not of nomenclature. Nevertheless, editors and
authors, in the interest of international uniformity, may wish to consider
adhering to the practice exemplified by the Code, which has been well
received in general and is being followed in an increasing number of bo-
tanical and mycological journals. To set off scientific plant names even
better, the use in the Code of italics for technical terms and other words in
Latin, traditional but inconsistent in past editions, has now been aban-
doned.

As its forerunners, the Editorial Committee has tried hard to achieve uni-
formity in bibliographic style and formal presentation – a sound educa-
tional exercise for its members, and a worthwhile goal because the Code
is considered a model to follow by many of its users. The titles of books in
bibliographic citations are abbreviated in conformity with Taxonomic
literature, ed. 2, by Stafleu & Cowan (1976-1988; with supplements by
Stafleu & Mennega, 1999-2000), or by analogy. For journal titles, the
abbreviation follows the Botanico-periodicum-huntianum (1968) and its
supplement (1991).

Author citations of scientific names appearing in the Code are standard-
ized in conformity with Authors of plant names, by Brummitt & Powell
(1992), as mentioned in Rec. 46A Note 1. One may note that the Code has
no tradition of recording the ascription of names to pre-1753 authors by
the validating author, although such “pre-ex” author citations are permit-
ted (see Art. 46 Ex. 21). Previous editions of the Code had no uniform
policy with respect to parenthetical author citations for suprageneric
names, as the provisions themselves provide no concrete guidance on the
matter. For consistency, the Editorial Committee has now opted for omis-
sion of parenthetical authors at the higher ranks throughout the Code, but
by this policy it does not intend to prejudge the conclusions of the Special
Committee on Suprageneric Names, set up in St Louis.

The St Louis Congress was conservative in nomenclatural matters in
comparison to its predecessors. Few substantive changes were allowed,
but many useful clarifications and improvements of the Code, both of
wording and substance, were accepted. Here we only draw attention to
changes of some note. An exhaustive report on the Section's decisions has
been published elsewhere (Barrie & Greuter in Taxon 48: 771-784. 1999).

viii

_______________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — Saint Louis Code

– ii –

_______________________________________________________________

Preface

The single largest area of change in the St Louis Code concerns typifica-
tion, where many excellent proposals had been submitted by the Special
Committee on Lectotypification. In Art. 8.2, the definition of a type speci-
men was revised, to make it clear that multiple plants or plant fragments
belonging to one and the same gathering and taxon, when mounted to-
gether on a single herbarium sheet or in an equivalent preparation, form
one specimen. Designations of only part of such specimens as lectotypes
are thus inappropriate in the future, and those of the past become irrele-
vant. Under certain conditions, a specimen may even comprise more than
one sheet or preparation (Art. 8.3). For the purpose of valid publication,
indication of the type may, under the novel Art. 37.2, refer (explicitly or
by implication) to more than one specimen, provided that all are dupli-
cates belonging to a single gathering. Because in such a case the type ma-
terial consists of more than one specimen there is no holotype, so a lecto-
type may be chosen from among the specimens. The same procedure is
now outlined in Art. 9.14 for the analogous situation of an alleged lecto-
type or neotype that is found to comprise two or more duplicate speci-
mens. The new provisions of Art. 9.18-9.19 clarify the status of epitypes
and the requirements for their designation, thus greatly improving the
usefulness of the epitype concept which had been introduced six years
before by the Tokyo Congress. Finally, the controversial, Janus-faced
former Art. 8.3, specifying when illustrations may serve as types, was
amended so that it can no longer be perceived to constrain the freedom of
lectotype designation; in its new position, as Art. 37.4, it is a clear and
straightforward impediment to the valid publication of post-1957 names
of species or lower-ranking taxa that are based on type illustrations.

The second major change decided at St Louis was not based on a pub-
lished proposal but on a motion from the floor, which was carried after an
emotional, truncated debate: that all reference to registration of new bo-
tanical names, to become mandatory from a future date, be deleted from
the Code, where they had been introduced by the Tokyo Congress six
years before – indeed a surprising reversal of opinion between two subse-
quent Congresses.

Other new matter to be found in the present edition of the Code is of com-
paratively lesser importance, as it either is of a non-mandatory, explana-
tory or advisory nature; or does not concern all botanical organisms but
only specified groups such as fossils, algae, or fungi; or consists in reor-
ganising and clarifying some previously unclear or contradictory prov-
isions; or takes effect only from a date in the future.

_______________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — Saint Louis Code

– iii –

_______________________________________________________________

Preface

Three new non-retroactive rules were introduced at St Louis, all concern-
ing typification. The Editorial Committee has power to fix the date from
which such provisions take effect. It opted for the turn of the millennium:
1 January 2001. This is one year earlier, relatively speaking, than for pre-
vious editions; the main reason being that the time needed for publishing
the St Louis Code (9 months) was significantly shorter than for earlier
editions (1 to 3 years). Two of the non-retroactive provisions concern the
conditions that new type designations must meet to be effective (Art. 7.11:
use of the phrase “here designated”, or equivalent wording; Art. 9.21: use
of the term “lectotypus” or “neotypus”, or their equivalent). The third
(Art. 38.2, also referred to in Art. 9.13) applies only to the names of new
taxa of fossil plants and requires, as a condition for valid publication, that
one accompanying illustration be explicitly stated to represent the type.

One further date limit first appears in the St Louis Code. From 1 January
1908 onward, the terminations of suprageneric names are accepted as
defining their rank, in the absence of an explicit rank-denoting term (Art.
35.2). The now familiar rank-specific standard terminations had been in-
troduced in 1905 by the first Vienna Congress, which explains the choice
of date. The Section had to consider many other proposals aimed at re-
forming suprageneric nomenclature, most of which it defeated and re-
ferred to an apposite Special Committee for further study. It did, however,
agree to clarify, simplify and restructure the rules governing suprafamilial
names (Art. 16-17), without changing their meaning.

Article 33, dealing with new combinations, is another portion of the Code
that the Section agreed to improve. One problem that had long been
known was that names obviously intended as new combinations but lack-
ing an explicit reference to their would-be basionym did sometimes fulfil
the requirements for valid publication as names of new taxa, with conse-
quent loss of priority, change of type, and other potentially negative side-
effects. This has now been remedied by new Art. 33.2. Another source of
trouble was the apparent conflict between former Art. 33.3 (errors of bib-
liographic citation are permissible) and 33.4 (citation of the wrong source
is not permissible), relevant in the case of combinations published after
1952. This conflict has now been resolved: Art. 33.4 defines citation er-
rors in a restrictive way, Art. 33.5 reaffirms that citation of the wrong
source is not a correctable error, and Art. 33.6 specifies some useful ex-
ceptions to the latter rule.

Article 58 was completely rewritten and substantially shortened, but its
meaning (in so far as it had one) was not thereby affected. – Upon a mo-

_______________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — Saint Louis Code

– iv –

_______________________________________________________________

Preface

tion from the floor, -glochin was defined to be feminine when terminating
a compound generic names, while -phykos will have to be treated as mas-
culine although it was neuter in classical times (Art. 62.2(b-c)). – A
change in Art. 21.2 clarified the status of names of subdivisions of genera
that were given a genitive noun as their epithet. It is now explicit that
genitive nouns are acceptable as such epithets only in the plural, not in the
singular. This provision is relevant mainly if one wishes to derive the
epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus from the name of an in-
cluded species, when one may not adopt unchanged substantival epithets
in the genitive singular (such as “Linnaei”), but may instead transform
them into plural adjectives (e.g., Linnaeani).

Fossil plant nomenclature underwent profound changes at St Louis. It is
hardly exaggerated to say that the accepted compromise solution, that an
ad hoc group of specialists worked out while the Section met, provides for
the first time ever a sound, workable formal basis for past and current
practice in palaeobotanical nomenclature. For nomenclatural purposes,
botanical fossils are now considered to belong in the first place to mor-
photaxa: taxa at definite ranks that comprise only particular parts, life
stages, or preservational states but not the whole organism (Art. 1.2).
Formal synonymy, and the operation of the priority principle, are confined
within the framework and boundaries of morphotaxa (Art. 11.7). The
qualitative definition of morphotaxon categories is not regulated by the
Code but is wisely left for the practising palaeotaxonomist to decide.
Similarly, the recognition and naming of “biological” fossil taxa, in the
sense of evolutionary units consisting of whole organisms, is not dealt
with in the Code, which gives full latitude to those interested in such basi-
cally hypothetical concepts to use for them the names that are best suited
for the purpose. Let us explain: Sigillaria, nomenclaturaly speaking, is the
name of a morphogenus comprising certain bark fragments, as the ulti-
mate type of the generic name (the type specimen of S. scutellata) is such
a bark fragment; yet when referring to Carboniferous forests in which
trees with Sigillaria bark predominated, it is permissible and makes per-
fectly good sense to speak of Sigillaria forests. Sigillariaceae nomencla-
turally designates a bark fragment morphofamily, but may be used for a
hypothetical evolutionary family which, among others, includes members
of the cone genus Mazocarpon (see Art. 11 Ex. 25).

As strict synonymy and therefore priority only operates among morpho-
taxa of the same kind, names of botanical fossils cannot logically compete
with names based on a non-fossil type. By consequence, the former Art.
11.7, which ruled that names of non-algal non-fossil taxa take priority

_______________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — Saint Louis Code

– v –

_______________________________________________________________

Preface

over names of fossils, has been downgraded to the status of a Note (Art.
11 Note 4). Moreover, the former algal exception was restricted to dia-
toms (Bacillariophyceae) alone, since they are the only algal group for
which a different treatment is important and useful. Nomenclaturally
speaking, fossil algae other than diatoms are now assimilated to fossil
plants, being assigned to morphotaxa, whereas no difference is made be-
tween fossil and non-fossil diatoms. This statement is true in the context
of synonymy and priority but not of valid publication, as for the latter
purpose fossil diatoms, as previously, count with the fossils not with the
algae (see Art. 36.2-3, 38-39). Specialists should be alert to this apparent
anomaly in the Code and to the potential difficulties it may cause, so that
a change, if worthwhile, can be envisaged in the future.

There are some minor changes regarding typification provisions that are
relevant to fossil plant nomenclature alone. They concern Art. 38.2 (al-
ready mentioned) and 9.13.

Fungal nomenclature was only affected in a marginal way by decisions of
the St Louis Congress. Some editorial improvements of the special rules
on fungal anamorphs are worth mentioning (see Art. 59.4 in particular), as
well as a new recommendation (59A.3) that discourages the creation of
anamorph names that are not really needed. The former “mandatory rec-
ommendation” 60H was promoted to Article status (60.12) and had its
coverage extended from “host plants” to all “associated organisms” after
which a fungus is named. Rec. 50E.2, addressing the way in which the
sanctioned status of a fungal name is indicated in its author citation, has
been made more explicit and of more general application. Finally, the
former “voted example” by which it was ruled that cultures preserved in a
metabolically inactive state are acceptable as types (Art. 8 Ex. 1) has,
most appropriately, received an explicit legal basis in Art. 8.4, where it is
also spelled out that this option exists for algae and fungi alike.

Among the non-mandatory (explanatory or advisory) matter added or
modified at St Louis, let us point out the reworded Art. 46.1, which
downgrades author citation after scientific names, from a necessary con-
dition for a name to be “accurate and complete” to a mere complement
that “may be desirable”, particularly in taxonomic and nomenclatural
publications. Authors and editors should be made aware of this change, as
past editorial policy has sometimes enforced the uncritical addition of
author citations in non-taxonomic papers, where they are of little use. –
One new term, “isonym”, has been introduced into the Code (Art. 6
Note 1), defined to mean the same name used independently by different

xii

_______________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — Saint Louis Code

– vi –

_______________________________________________________________

Preface

authors at different times – a nomenclaturally irrelevant notion that may
perhaps be useful occasionally for the sake of an argument.

Among the portions of the Code that remain virtually unchanged after St
Louis, are the two for which by far the largest number of amendment pro-
posals had been submitted: orthography and the naming of hybrids. For
the latter domain, the proposer himself suggested that implementation of
the proposed changes was premature, and that a special “inter-Code
Committee” should be asked to consider how best to coordinate the provi-
sions on hybrids in the botanical Code and in the Intenational code of
nomenclature for cultivated plants. The Section gladly agreed; but as to
orthography, it not only turned down in disgust the countless and partly
conflicting proposals that had been made, but also refused to set up a new
committee to consider the numerous still unresolved issues.

A series of loosely related proposals had the aim of promoting harmony
and co-ordination between the different sets of rules governing botanical,
zoological, bacterial and viral nomenclature. The Section was only mar-
ginally more lenient with respect to these proposals than with the ortho-
graphical ones. Yet, some progress was achieved. In the field of terminol-
ogy, the terms “homotypic synonym”, “heterotypic synonym” and “re-
placement name” were accepted as optional equivalents of the earlier
“nomenclatural synonym”, “taxonomic synonym”, and “avowed substi-
tute”. The terminations -viridae, -virales, -virinae, and -virus were out-
lawed for names of subclasses, orders, subtribes, and genera, respectively
(Rec. 16A.3(c), Art. 17.1, 19.3, and 20.1), so as to avoid possible future
homonymy or confusion with names of viruses. A new recommendation
(54A) endeavours to dissuade authors naming new botanical taxa from
using names that already exist in zoology or bacteriology. The Section
also encouraged ongoing efforts toward inter-Code harmonization by ap-
proving the set-up of a Special Liaison Committee.

The St Louis Code was prepared according to the procedures outlined in
Div. III, which have been operating with hardly any change since the Paris
Congress of 1954. 215 individual numbered amendment proposals were
published in Taxon between February 1996 and November 1998. Their
synopsis, with comments by the Rapporteurs, appeared in Taxon (48: 69-
128) in February 1999 and served as the basis for the preliminary, non-
binding mail vote by the members of the International Association for
Plant Taxonomy (and some other persons), as specified in Division III of
the Code. Tabulation of the mail vote was taken care of by the Nomen-
clature Section's Recorder, F. R. Barrie. The results were made available

xiii

_______________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — Saint Louis Code

– vii –

_______________________________________________________________

Preface

to the members of the Nomenclature Section at the beginning of its meet-
ings; they were also tabulated in the November 1999 issue of Taxon (48:
777-782), along with the action taken by Congress.

The Nomenclature Section met at the Missouri Botanical Garden, St
Louis, Missouri, U.S.A., on 26-30 July 1999. The St Louis Section was
the best attended of any Congress so far. It had 297 registered members
carrying 494 institutional votes n addition to their personal votes. The
Section Officers, previously appointed in conformitiy with Division III of
the Code, were H. M. Burdet (President), F. R. Barrie (Recorder), W.
Greuter (Rapporteur-général), and D. L. Hawksworth (Vice-Rapporteur).
Each Nomenclature Section is entitled to define its own procedural rules
within the limits set by the Code, but tradition is held sacred. As on previ-
ous occasions, a 60 % assenting majority was required for any proposed
change to the Code to be adopted. Proposals rejected by 75 % or more in
the mail ballot were ruled to be defeated unless raised anew from the
floor. The proceedings of the nomenclature sessions are presently being
edited, based on a tape transcript. They will be published later this year in
the serial Englera.

The Nomenclature Section also appointed the Editorial Committee for the
St Louis Code. As is traditional, only persons present at the Section meet-
ings were invited to serve on that Committee, which as the Code requires
is chaired by the previous Rapporteur-général and as is logical includes
the Vice-Rapporteur as its secretary and the new Rapporteur, who will
serve at the next (Vienna) Congress, as vice-chairman. The Editorial
Committee, complete as elected, convened on 23 January 2000 at the Bo-
tanischer Garten und Botanischer Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Berlin, Ger-
many, for a full week’s hard work. The Committee worked on the basis of
a draft of the text of the main body of the Code, prepared by the Chairman
to incorporate the changes decided by the Section, which was distributed
by electronic mail on 25 November 1999; and of a preliminary version of
the proceedings of the Section meetings, e-mailed between 25 November
1999 and 1 January 2000 as transcribed from tape and revised portion-
wise by F. R. Barrie, D. L. Hawksworth, and J. McNeill.

Each Editorial Committee has the task of addressing matters specifically
referred to it, incorporating changes agreed by the Section, clarifying any
ambiguous wording, ensuring consistency, and providing additional ex-
amples for inclusion. The terms of the Committee’s mandate, as defined
by the Section in St Louis at its constituent meeting, included the usual
empowerment to alter the wording, the examples, or the location of Arti-

xiv

_______________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — Saint Louis Code

– viii –

_______________________________________________________________

Preface

cles and Recommendations, in so far as the meaning was not affected;
while retaining the present numbering in so far as possible.

The full Editorial Committee concentrated on the main body of the Code,
including Appendix I (hybrids) and the texts heading Appendices II-V. A
new electronic draft of these portions was completed immediately after
the meeting, which was proof-read by all Committee members. The con-
tents of Appendices II-V were revised and updated in a bilateral process
involving the Chairman and a specialist for each of the groups concerned,
normally a Committee member (V. Demoulin for the fungi, D. H. Nicol-
son for vascular plants, P. C. Silva for the algae, J. E. Skog for fossil
plants), except for the bryophytes (G. Zijlstra, Utrecht, with assistance from
P. Isoviita, Helsinki). The Subject index and the appended Index to scien-
tific names were prepared entirely by P. Trehane; the remodelled Index to
the Appendices was compiled by W. Greuter, who also cared for the final
copy-editing, formatting, and the production of camera-ready copy.

Two of the Appendices call for special comments. The Section on a straw
vote had indicated preference for an alphabetical sequence of entries of all
conserved generic names, within the major groups. Alphabetizing, for
spermatophyte genera, was tantamount to abandoning the former numeri-
cal classification of the venerable but obsolete Dalla Torre & Harms sys-
tem. In the electronic age this operation, which might once have been a
nightmare, proved to be fairly easy, so the Editorial Committee was
pleased to comply with the Section’s wish. It was less pleased with the
Section’s ill-advised instruction (not alas a mere wish) to revise the list of
conserved spermatophyte family names, abandoning the (informally in-
troduced but not regularly approved) 1789 starting-point date of the previ-
ous list and introducing numerous other changes of authorship and date,
the need for which had been brought to light by the bibliographic searches
of J. E. Reveal. This task, which F. R. Barrie and N. J. Turland had vol-
unteered to undertake jointly, proved to be quite demanding and indeed in
part impossible to achieve, because Reveal’s list of suggested changes
was found to be less dependable than he (and the Section) had anticipated.
Barrie and Turland, who managed to verify all relevant entries to the
original source, had to conclude that in many cases a change was unwar-
ranted, and in other cases it should better wait until the conclusions of the
Special Committee on Suprageneric Names were known. The following
explanatory notes, by Turland, will illustrate the problems encountered
and the solutions adopted.

_______________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — Saint Louis Code

– ix –

_______________________________________________________________

Preface

“We have accepted only those names which we are confident are validly
published at the rank of family. We have notes on all the dubiously correct
and obviously wrong authors and references on Reveal’s list, and will
make these available to the Special Committee [on Suprageneric Names.
In particular,] we removed the Berchtold & J. Presl names because they
probably have to be taken as orders (‘rad’), with some of them subdivided
into families (‘celed’). According to [the consulted Czech and Slovak
botanists] K. Marhold, J. Kirschner, and J. Stepanek, while ‘rad’ means
order, ‘celed’ can only mean family, both now and in 1820. On advice
from H. M. Burdet, we regard the names in Durande (1782) as not validly
published because they are not accepted by the author, but rather are
merely an account of Jussieu’s system. The names of Batsch (1796) are
dubious: while a few seem acceptable, many others are groups with de-
scriptive names such as Drupiferae, Pomiferae, Senticosae, Multisiliquae,
Succulentae, Arillatae, Pentacarpae, Rostratae, Ciliatae, Hesperideae,
Sarmentaceae, Fimbriatae, etc. Moreover, ‘Piperitae’ (accepted by Rev-
eal as Piperaceae) appear to have nothing to do with Piper but are in-
stead based on Arum. It seems better to leave all these names out. Several
other, individual names have also been excluded. We are preparing a pa-
per for Taxon explaining what we have done.”

Fortunately, after Barrie's and Turland's critical review, the only pre-
Jussieu (pre-1789) entries that had to be accepted are those from Adanson
(1763) which at least is a well-known work, many familiar names being
involved. Still, we want to discourage users from introducing changes of
family names that appear to result from acceptance of the new list but
would go against the previous one. The Section was given the promise
that such changes would be avoided by timely conservation action, and
although not even the relevant proposals have yet been published, it is
reasonable to assume that such action will eventually be taken. Therefore,
e.g., the family including both Vaccinium L. and Erica L. should better
remain known as Ericaceae Juss. and not renamed Vacciniaceae Adans.
(an example which, incidentally, is not among those that were mentioned
before the Section).

This is the proper place for us to thank all those who have contributed to
the publication of the new Code: our fellow members of the Editorial
Committee for their forbearance, helpfulness, and congeniality; all the
persons, just named, who contributed in a special way and much beyond
their normal commitment to particular editorial tasks; the botanists at
large who volunteered advice and suggestions, including relevant new
examples; Mrs R. Ziegler for speedily typing the raw transcript of the

xvi

_______________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — Saint Louis Code

– x –

_______________________________________________________________

Preface

nomenclature sessions’ tape recordings; the International Association for
Plant Taxonomy and its new Secretary, Tod Stuessy, for having honoured
IAPT’s traditional commitment to plant nomenclature by funding the
Editorial Committee meeting in Berlin; and the publisher, Sven Koeltz,
for his helpfulness and the speed with which he once again showed the
Code through the print. As our nomenclatural mandate now comes to an
end, this is also the proper time and place for a general if personal epi-
logue.

Biological nomenclature is the means of channelling the outputs of sys-
tematic research for general consumption. It is not only the taxonomists’
concern but is of relevance for all who need to communicate about organ-
isms. Nomenclature Sections at preceding Congresses had been increas-
ingly aware of this fact and of the consequent need to make organismal
nomenclature and the rules governing it subservient to the needs of the
world at large. During the period in which we have been associated with
the development of the Code, major changes have been implemented
which promote the stability of names and their application, including con-
servation of species names, rejection of names at any rank, introduction of
the epitype concept, and acceptance of metabolically inactive cultures as
types. The Tokyo Code, also known as the “purple Code”, foreshadowed
the new and daringly modern idea of mandatory registration of future
names and all but embraced the concept of stabilized lists of names in
current use.

The Section in St Louis did not see fit to move further along that road,
even reversing courses set at Yokohama six years before. Obviously, the
pace of development of the Code had been too rapid for a hard core of
nomenclatural practitioners to follow. The Section, in the perfectly sound
logic of Reaction, therefore denied implementation to a tested and func-
tional system for the registration newly proposed names, refused discuss-
ing the principle of protection of names in current use, and opposed most
suggestions aiming at a harmonized terminology in biological nomenclat-
ure. This is an understandable response, not in itself a cause for worry. If
one looks dispassionately at the ups and downs of World’s history, and of
biological nomenclature, one may safely anticipate that, after a truce, the
now defeated proposals, or similar ones, will find favour at some future
Congress.

We have, however, been saddened by the context in which these decisions
took place. Passion in nomenclatural discussions is fine and (which is
perhaps surprising with as dry a subject) has a solid tradition of long

xvii

_______________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — Saint Louis Code

– xi –

_______________________________________________________________

Preface

standing; but hatred has not. The Jacobine frenzy with which the Section
was induced to eradicate all traces of registration from the Tokyo Code is
we believe unprecedented. The refusal to listen to others, to let contradic-
tory arguments be exposed and explained, has worried us deeply. With
such a large and largely novel audience, nomenclature had a unique
chance to prove itself a rational discipline. In this it has failed.

Perhaps, then, the failure is ours, who should have guided and advised the
Section in its debates. Accepting this failure, we decided not to seek
reappointment in our nomenclatural functions. If anyone, John McNeill,
the new Rapporteur, has the skills and instinct needed to bring nomencla-
ture forward in the new Millennium. In this, we wish him every success.

To you, the user, we now entrust the St Louis Code; the “black Code”, as
you may call it if you feel that the cover colour has meaning. And perhaps
it has, symbolizing the silver stripe of hope set against the sombre back-
ground of Reaction (rather than mourn).

Berlin and London, 31 March 2000

Werner Greuter
David L. Hawksworth

xviii

_______________________________________________________________

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2000 — Saint Louis Code

– xii –

_______________________________________________________________

[ to body of the 2000, St Louis Code ]