Preface |
PREFACE
Unambiguous names for organisms are essential for effective
scientific
communication; names can only be unambiguous
if there are internation-
ally accepted rules
governing their formation and use.
The rules that gov-
ern scientific naming in botany
(including phycology and mycology)
are
revised at Nomenclature Section meetings
at successive International Bot-
anical Congresses.
The present edition of the
International code of botan_
ical nomenclature
embodies the decisions of
the XVII International Bot-
anical Congress
held in Vienna in 2005 and supersedes the
Saint Louis
Code, published six years ago subsequent
to the XVI International Bot-
anical Congress
in St Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.
It is written entirely in
(British) English. The
St Louis Code was translated
into Chinese, French,
Japanese,
Portuguese, Russian, Slovak, and Spanish;
it is therefore antici-
pated that the
Vienna Code, too, will become available
in several lang-
uages in due course.
One of the reasons invoked for the choice of Vienna
as the site of the sev-
enteenth Congress,
was that the second International Botanical Congress
had been held there exactly 100 years earlier.
It was that Congress that
accepted the first internationally developed rules
governing the naming of
plants,
Règles internationales de la Nomenclature botanique adoptées
par
le Congrès International de Botanique de Vienne 1905 /
International
rules of Botanical Nomenclature ... /
Internationale Regeln der Botan-
ischen Nomenclatur ...
– or simply the
Vienna Rules, thus obviating con-
fusion with this
Vienna Code,
and not requiring this Code to bear any
qualifying numeral.
The
Vienna Code
does not differ substantially in overall presentation
and
arrangement from the
St Louis Code,
and the numbering of Articles re-
mains the same,
although there have been a few additions to,
and modi-
fications
of, paragraphs, Recommendations, and Examples,
often involv-
ing changes in their numbering.
One small change has also been made in
the numbering of the Appendices
to make this more logical: the former
App. IIIA,
dealing with conserved names of genera is now simply App.
III,
and the former App. IIIB, with names of species, becomes App. IV.
With App. IIA & IIB
continuing to contain the two sorts of conserved
family names,
there is now a logical sequence for the lists of conserved
names:
II for families,
III for genera,
and IV for species.
The subsequent
Appendices increase in number accordingly,
so that names rejected “uti-
que” under
Art. 56 form App. V,
and suppressed works, App. VI. The
St
vii |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006 — Vienna Code
– i –
text: © 2006, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Preface |
Louis Code omitted the “Important Dates in the Code”
that had appeared
in the
Berlin & Tokyo Codes; this has been restored in the
Vienna Code,
from a draft by D. L. Hawksworth.
In overall presentation the most notable feature, however,
is the inclusion
for the first time of a Glossary,
which appears as Appendix VII. This was
requested by the Vienna Congress
and it was made clear that it should be
an integral part of the Code
with all the authority thereof. This has meant
that the Glossary
is very tightly linked to the wording of the Code, and
only nomenclatural
terms defined in the Code can be included. A few oth-
er terms
in more general use and not defined in the Code (e.g. description,
position, rank) but with distinctive application in the Code have,
however,
also been included; they are distinguished by the statement
“not defined”
followed by an explanation of the way in which,
in the opinion of the
Editorial Committee, they are applied in the
Code.
For the preparation of
the Glossary, the Committee is particularly
grateful to P. C. Silva, who ini-
tiated the project
and who prepared the first draft for consideration by the
Editorial Committee and who has worked over several subsequent ones,
ensuring precision and consistency.
The text of the Code uses three different sizes of print,
the Recommen-
dations and Notes being set in smaller type
than the Articles, and the
Examples and footnotes in smaller type
than the Recommendations and
Notes.
The type sizes reflect the distinction between the rules
which are
mandatory (Articles), complementary information
or advice (Notes and
Recommendations), 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 Sec-
tion, contain material 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.
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
editorial 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 followed in a number of botanical
and myco-
viii |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006 — Vienna Code
– ii –
text: © 2006, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Preface |
logical journals. To set off scientific plant names even better,
the aban-
donment in the
Code of italics for technical terms and other words in
Latin, traditional but inconsistent in early editions,
has been maintained.
Like its forerunners, the Editorial Committee
has tried hard to achieve
uniformity 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 lit-
erature, ed. 2,
by Stafleu & Cowan (1976-1988;
with Supplements 1-6 by
Stafleu & Mennega, 1992-2000),
or by analogy, but with capital initial
letters.
For journal titles, the abbreviations follow the
Botanico-peri-
odicum-huntianum, ed. 2 (2004).
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;
these are also adopted and
updated by the International Plant Names Index,
and may be accessed at
http://www.ipni.org/index.html. One may note that the
Code has no tradi-
tion of recording the ascription
of names to pre-1753 authors by the valid-
ating author,
although such “pre-ex” author citations are permitted (see
Art. 46 Ex.
33).
Like its immediate predecessor,
the Vienna Congress was conservative in
nomenclatural matters
in comparison with some earlier Congresses. Rela-
tively
few changes were accepted, but a small number of significant ones
and many useful clarifications and improvements of the Code,
both in
wording and substance, were adopted.
Here we only draw attention to
changes of some note.
A full report on the Section’s decisions has been
published
elsewhere
(McNeill & al. in Taxon 54: 1057-1064. 2006).
Perhaps the most important single decision incorporated into the
Vienna
Code was to deal with what many have recognized
as a bomb waiting to
explode,
the publication status of theses submitted for a higher degree.
In
most, but certainly not all, countries,
such theses have not traditionally
been considered media
for effective publication under the
Code,
and de-
gree candidates have normally gone on
to publish in journals or
monograph series the taxonomic novelties
and nomenclatural actions con-
tained in their theses.
However, as soon as theses ceased to be typewritten
with carbon copies, or as soon as they were made available
commercially
by photo-reproduction, no provision existed in the
Code to treat them
as
other than effectively published.
Because of the fact that in some other
ix |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006 — Vienna Code
– iii –
text: © 2006, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Preface |
countries, notably the Netherlands and some Scandinavian countries,
the-
ses, to be accepted, must be produced in substantial numbers
and are
intended as effectively published media,
it has not hitherto been possible
to resolve the issue.
Nevertheless, despite the lack of any justification in
the
Code for treating most theses
produced over the past 40 years as other
than effectively published,
the practice not to do so has persisted outside
of a few countries.
In consequence, the Section took the unusual step of
accepting
a retroactive change in the
Code by deciding
that no inde-
pendent non-serial publication stated to be a thesis
submitted for a higher
degree on or after 1 January 1953
would be considered an effectively
published work without a statement
to that effect or other internal evi-
dence. The Editorial Committee
was instructed to provide examples of in-
ternal evidence
that would best reflect current practice. The new
Art. 30
Note
2
refers to the presence of an International Standard Book Number
(ISBN) or a statement of the name of the printer, publisher,
or distributor
in the original printed version
as such internal evidence.
Several proposals on criteria for valid publication of names
were con-
sidered in Vienna.
It was made explicit that names be composed only of
letters
of the Latin alphabet except as otherwise provided in the Code,
and
some clarification was accepted on what constitutes
a description or diagn-
osis: statements on usage of plants,
on cultural and cultivation features,
and on geographical origin or geological age are not acceptable,
nor is the
mere mention of features but not their expression.
Conceptually more sig-
nificant, however,
was the decision to make provision for binding deci-
sions
on whether or not a descriptive statement meets the requirement of
Art. 32.1(d)
for a “description or diagnosis” – the so-called
“nomina sub-
nuda” situation. This introduces into the
Code
an entirely new concept in
botanical nomenclature,
although one that is well-established in zoolog-
ical nomenclature,
namely rulings on interpretation of the
Code itself.
Since the Sydney Congress of 1981,
there has been provision for rulings
on whether or not two names or epithets are likely to be confused,
and, of
course, in the conservation and rejection of names,
judgement must be
made as to whether or not there will be
“disadvantageous nomenclatural
change”,
but these do not involve interpretation of the Code itself.
The
procedure established is the same as that for judgement
on whether names
or epithets are sufficiently alike to be confused
(Art. 53.5)
and the General
Committee will probably need
to establish mechanisms to ensure that pro-
posed rulings
coming from the different Permanent Committees
are rea-
sonably consistent in their interpretation of
Art. 32.1(d).
x |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006 — Vienna Code
– iv –
text: © 2006, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Preface |
Article 33,
dealing with new combinations,
although improved signifi-
cantly at the previous Congress,
was again the subject of clarification,
principally in making a separation in the paragraphs of the Article
be-
tween the situation before 1 January 1953
and the more precise require-
ments from that date onward.
In addition it was made clearer that, prior to
1 January 1953,
when the epithet of a previously and validly published
name
that applies to the same taxon is adopted,
the “presumed new com-
bination” is validly published
if there is any indication at all of a basio-
nym,
however indirect, but if there is no such indication,
the new com-
bination is only validly published
if it would otherwise be a validly pub-
lished name.
By contrast, it was accepted in Vienna that on or after 1
January 1953
a claimed new combination or avowed substitute, that lacks
the full information required regarding the basionym
or replaced synonym
is not validly published even though the name
would otherwise be validly
published as the name of a new taxon.
Although involving the somewhat
cumbersome expression
“a generic name with a basionym” it has been
made explicit
that most of the rules on combinations apply also
to such
generic names.
Three important sets of changes were accepted in Vienna
applying to
names in particular groups of organisms,
fossil plants, pleomorphic fungi,
and fungi
that had previously been named under the ICZN, respectively.
That for fossil plants was a reversal of one component
of the rules on
morphotaxa introduced in the
St Louis Code. At the St Louis Congress it
was argued (and accepted)
that all fossil taxa should be treated as
morphotaxa.
This has not, however, been considered appropriate by the
majority of palaeobotanists and a distinction between a morphotaxon and
a regular fossil taxon is now established. Whereas a morphotaxon
com-
prises only the one part, life-history stage,
or preservational state repre-
sented by the type of its name,
any new fossil taxon that is described as
including more than one part,
life-history stage, or preservational state is
not a morphotaxon.
A corollary of this change is that
Art. 11.7 of the
Tok-
yo Code has had to be reinstated (as
Art. 11.8 of the
Vienna Code) be-
cause priority of a name of a taxon
based on a non-fossil type competing
with one for the same taxon
based on a fossil type is no longer implicit.
Opportunity has also been taken to make clear that later homonyms
are illegitimate whether the type is fossil or non-fossil.
The Code has long provided for a dual nomenclature
for fungi with a
pleomorphic life history.
Proposals to amend the article involved
(Art. 59)
in order to facilitate a single name for a fungal taxon
for which the
xi |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006 — Vienna Code
– v –
text: © 2006, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Preface |
anamorph-teleomorph relationship is known were extensively debated
amongst the mycologists present in Vienna who came to a consensus
on
one very significant change in
Art. 59,
through which, by using the
epitype concept, a name,
currently only applicable to an anamorph, may
be applied
in the future to the whole organism (the holomorph)
– cf.
Art.
59.7.
A very important change in the
Code, as it affects certain groups of
organisms
now recognized as fungi, is the extension to fungi
of the pro-
vision of the second sentence of
Art. 45.4,
previously applicable only to
algae. This deals with the names
of taxa originally assigned to a group not
covered by the
ICBN, but which are now considered to be either algae
– or
now also fungi.
To be accepted as validly published under the
ICBN, such
names need only meet the requirements
of the pertinent non-botanical
Code. The particular situation that triggered the proposal
was that of the
Microsporidia,
long considered protozoa and now recognized as fungi.
In
addition, species names in the genus
Pneumocystis
(Archiascomycetes),
containing important human and other mammalian pathogens,
none of
which were validly published under the
St Louis Code
(usually because of
the lack of a Latin diagnosis or description),
are now also to be treated as
validly published.
The change may have negative effects on a few names
in groups longer established as fungi such as slime moulds,
labyrinthulids,
and trichomycetes, at least on authorship,
but the numbers and importance
are considered small
compared with the benefits for the microsporidians
and the species of
Pneumocystis.
In the
St Louis Code,
the previously rather ambiguous restrictions on illus-
trations
as types of names published after the type method entered the
Code were clarified by establishing that illustrations
were permitted as
types of names published before 1 January 1958,
but were prohibited
thereafter unless it were “impossible to preserve
a specimen”, a condition
that many felt hard to define.
Many at the Vienna Congress also felt that
this “clarification”
had had the effect of retroactively devalidating names
published after 1957 with an illustration as type.
The Congress agreed to
move the date and decided
that for names of microscopic algae and
microfungi
for which preservation of a type was technically difficult,
the
type might be an illustration,
but that for all other organisms, names pub-
lished
on or after 1 January 2007 would require a specimen as type.
Stemming from the Report of the Special Committee on Suprageneric
Names set up at the St Louis Congress, it was agreed
that the starting date
for valid publication of suprageneric names
of spermatophytes, pterido-
xii |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006 — Vienna Code
– vi –
text: © 2006, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Preface |
phytes, and bryophytes
(excluding those mosses already with a 1801 start-
ing date)
be 4 August 1789, the date of publication of Jussieu’s
Genera
plantarum.
This restores the original basis of spermatophyte family names
in
App. IIB,
dating to the Montreal Congress of 1959,
which had never
been included in any article of the
Code, and which had had to be changed
in the
St Louis Code as a result of the Tokyo Congress
failing to support a
proposal similar to this one
and the St Louis Congress deleting a prot-
ecting footnote.
The Section also established that parenthetic author cita-
tion
is not permitted at suprageneric ranks.
Full details of unavoidable changes made to Appendix IIB since the
St
Louis Code were published in the Second Report of
the Special Commit-
tee on Suprageneric Names
(Turland & Watson in Taxon 54: 491-499.
2005).
The amendment to
Art. 18.2, new Note 1
and voted Ex.
4, accepted
at the Vienna Congress,
have necessitated some additional changes since
that Committee’s report
and it is appropriate to detail these here. When, in
a work,
taxa ranked as orders are subdivided into families, the names of
those taxa must be treated at the stated ranks and the orders cannot be
treated as having been published as families under
Art. 18.2.
The orders
and families in Berchtold & Presl’s
O prirozenosti rostlin (1820)
were al-
ready treated at the stated ranks,
although
Ambrosiaceae and
Asteraceae,
previously listed from Martinov’s
Tekhno-botanicheskii Slovar (1820)
have been updated because Berchtold & Presl
published their book earlier
in 1820 (Jan-Apr)
than Martinov (3 Aug) (A. Doweld, pers. comm.).
In
Vines’s
A student’s text-book of botany (1895)
one order is subdivided in-
to families, two of which,
Cymodoceaceae and
Posidoniaceae, have been
updated.
Six names in Link’s Handbuch, vols. 1 and 2 (1829)
have been
updated because, in vol. 3,
Link published two family names under the
order Fungi,
which means that the names ranked as orders throughout the
work
(Art. 35.5)
must be treated as the names of orders,
not as families as
has traditionally been done.
The affected names are
Dodonaeaceae, Meli-
anthaceae, Moraceae, Neuradaceae,
Tetragoniaceae and
Theophrasta-
ceae. In addition,
Cordiaceae, which was updated to Link
in the Special
Committee’s report, remains as listed in
App. IIB in the
St Louis Code.
Moreover, four family names previously overlooked
in Berchtold &
Presl’s rare, later, multi-volume work
of the same name (1823-1825) have
been updated:
Aquifoliaceae, Cornaceae, Potamogetonaceae and
Punica-
ceae.
The rules determining when a rank is denoted by a misplaced term
(and
hence not validly published)
were clarified and made more practical. This
xiii |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006 — Vienna Code
– vii –
text: © 2006, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Preface |
introduced the concepts of “minimum invalidity”
(Art. 33.10),
by which
only those names with rank-denoting terms that must be removed
to pro-
vide the correct sequence would be considered
not validly published, and
of “informal usage”
(Art. 33.11),
for situations in which the same term
was used for several different non-sequential ranks;
such names are to be
treated as validly published but unranked.
It was established that having
the ranks of both order and family
in a work precluded application of
Art.
18.2
(and similarly
Art. 19.2
in the cases of suborder and subfamily),
and
that sequential use of the same rank
did not preclude valid publication
(Art. 33 Note 3).
One further date limit first appears in the
Vienna Code. From 1 January
2007 a new combination,
a new generic name with a basionym,
or an
avowed substitute is not validly published
unless its basionym or replaced
synonym is cited.
Currently, although a full and direct reference
to the
place of publication must be given,
the basionym or replaced synonym
need only be indicated.
One portion of the
Code that remains virtually unchanged after Vienna
is
that for which by far the largest number of amendment proposals (147)
was submitted, namely orthography Of the 147 proposals,
only five were
accepted but 107 were referred to the Editorial Committee.
After review
of all these proposals by a subcommittee
of the Editorial Committee
(F. R.
Barrie, D. H. Nicolson, and N. J. Turland,
who gratefully acknowledge
advice from R. Gereau,
Missouri Botanical Garden), the changes incor-
porated into the
Vienna Code are very few and none imposes a significant
change in practice. The most notable is a clarification of the
respective ap-
plication of
Rec. 60C.1 and
60C.2.
The
Code establishes
(Art. 12.1)
that only if validly published does a
name have any status;
indeed, unless otherwise indicated, the word
“name” in the
Code means a name that has been validly published
(Art.
6.3).
For this reason recent editions of the
Code have replaced “name” by
“designation” when the requirements
for valid publication have not been
met, and the
Vienna Code has taken this further by avoiding such contra-
dictory
expressions as a name being validated, or being invalid.
Given
the very different meaning of “valid” and “invalid” applied
to names in
zoological nomenclature (equivalent to the botanical
“correct” and “in-
correct”), it is convenient that neither
“valid name” nor “invalid name”
need be used in botanical nomenclature:
either a name is validly published
or else it is not a validly published
name, i.e. not a name under the
Code.
xiv |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006 — Vienna Code
– viii –
text: © 2006, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Preface |
The
Vienna 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. A total of 312 individual
numbered amendment pro-
posals were published in
Taxon between February 2002 and November
2004.
Their synopsis, with comments by the Rapporteurs, appeared in
Taxon (54: 215-250) in February 2005 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 Nomenclature Section’s Recorder,
T. F. Stuessy and his assistants in
Vienna.
The results were made available
to the members of the Nomen-
clature Section
at the beginning of its meetings;
they were also tabulated
in the November 2005 issue of
Taxon (54: 1057-1064),
along with the
action taken by Congress.
The Nomenclature Section met at the Uni-Campus, University of Vienna,
Spitalgasse 2, Vienna, on 12-16 July 2005.
With 198 registered members
carrying 402 institutional votes
in addition to their personal votes, the
Vienna Section had
a large attendance compared with many previous
Congresses
but was substantially smaller than that at St Louis
(with 297
members carrying 494 institutional votes).
The Section Officers, previ-
ously appointed in conformity
with Division III of the
Code, were D. H.
Nicolson (President),
T. F. Stuessy (Recorder),
J. McNeill (Rapporteur-
général), and
N. J. Turland (Vice-Rapporteur).
Each Nomenclature Sec-
tion is entitled to define
its own procedural rules within the limits set by
the
Code, but tradition is held sacred.
As on previous occasions, at least a
60% assenting majority
was required for any proposed change to the
Code
to be adopted. Proposals that received 75%
or more “no” votes in the mail
ballot were ruled as rejected
unless raised anew from the floor.
The pro-
ceedings of the nomenclature sessions
are presently being edited, based on
a tape transcript.
They will be published later this year or early in 2007
in the serial
Englera.
The Nomenclature Section also appointed the Editorial Committee for the
Vienna 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 Rapporteur-général
and as is logical includes the Vice-
Rapporteur as its secretary.
The Editorial Committee sadly lost one of its
members,
when Guanghua Zhu died on 2 November 2005;
the other 12
members of the committee convened on 6 January 2006
at the Missouri
Botanical Garden, St Louis, U.S.A.,
for a full week’s hard work. The
xv |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006 — Vienna Code
– ix –
text: © 2006, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Preface |
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
in December 2005;
and of a preliminary version of the proceedings
of the Section meetings,
as transcribed from tape
and revised portion-wise by F. R. Barrie, D. L.
Hawksworth,
J. McNeill, D. H Nicolson, and N. J. Turland.
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 Vienna at its constituent meeting, included the usual
empowerment
to alter the wording, the examples, or the location of Art-
icles
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).
A new electronic draft of these portions
was completed prior
to the end of its meeting,
and provided to all Com-
mittee members for checking
and for any further necessary clarification;
as a result a revised draft was prepared and circulated in mid-May
to all
members for final proofreading. The contents of
Appendices II-VI were
revised and updated in a bilateral process
involving the Chairman and a
specialist for each of the groups concerned,
normally a Committee mem-
ber (V. Demoulin for the fungi,
D. H. Nicolson for genera and species of
vascular plants,
P. C. Silva for the algae,
J. E. Skog for fossil plants,
N. J.
Turland for family names of vascular plants),
except for the bryophytes
(G. Zijlstra, Utrecht, Secretary, Committee for Bryophyta,
with assistance
from P. Isoviita, Helsinki).
The Secretaries of the other Permanent Com-
mittees
for particular groups provided useful assistance to the responsible
Editorial Committee member. The Subject index and the
Index to scient-
ific names were revised by J. Prado;
the Index to the Appendices was
updated by J. McNeill, who,
with N. J. Turland, also cared for the final
copy-editing;
the time-consuming task of final formatting and production
of camera-ready copy was carried out by N. J. Turland.
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
xvi |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006 — Vienna Code
– x –
text: © 2006, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Preface |
examples; the International Association for Plant Taxonomy
and its Sec-
retary, Tod Stuessy, for maintaining IAPT’s
traditional commitment to
plant nomenclature by funding travel
and some ancillary costs for the
Editorial Committee meeting
in St Louis; the Missouri Botanical Garden
and its Director,
Peter Raven, for providing accommodation free of charge
and hospitality for that meeting;
and the publisher, Sven Koeltz,
for his
helpfulness
and the speed with which he once again guided the
Code
through the printing process.
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 of names,
and also those who are members of Special Com-
mittees
set up by the Nomenclature Section of the Congress
to review and
seek solutions to particular nomenclatural problems.
Botanical nomen-
clature is remarkable
for the large number of taxonomists who voluntarily
work
so effectively and so extensively to the immeasurable benefit
of all
those who use plant names.
On their behalf we express our sincere thanks
to all who participate in this work.
The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature is published
under the
ultimate authority of the International Botanical
Congresses. Provisions
for the modification of the
Code
are detailed in
Division III (p. 117).
The
next International Botanical Congress will be held
in Melbourne, Aus-
tralia from 23-30 July 2011,
with a Nomenclature Section meeting likely
in the preceding week.
Invitation for proposals to amend this
Code
and
instructions on procedure and format
will be published in
Taxon
during
2007.
Like other international codes of nomenclature the
ICBN has no legal sta-
tus and is dependent
on the voluntary acceptance of its rules by authors,
editors,
and other users of plant names. We trust that this
Vienna Code
will make their work just that little easier.
Edinburgh & St Louis, 24 July 2006
|
John McNeill Nicholas J. Turland |
xvii |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006 — Vienna Code
– xi –
text: © 2006, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
Important dates |
IMPORTANT DATES IN THE CODE
DATES UPON WHICH PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF THE CODE
BECOME EFFECTIVE
1 May
4 Aug 1 Jan 31 Dec 31 Dec 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan 1 Jan |
|
1753
1789 1801 1801 1820 1821 1848 1886 1890 1892 1900 1908 1912 1935 1953 1958 1973 1990 1996 2001 2007 |
Art. 7.7,
13.1(a),
(c),
(d),
(e)
Art. 13.1(a), (c) Art. 13.1(b) Art. 13.1(d) Art. 13.1(f) Art. 13.1(d) Art. 13.1(e) Art. 13.1(e) Art. 35.4 Art. 13.1(e) Art. 13.1(e) Art. 35.2, 42.3, 44.1 Art. 20.2, 38.1 Art. 36.1 Art. 30.1, 30.3, 30.4, 30.5, 32.5, 33.2, 33.3, 33.4, 33.5, 33.7, 33.8, 34.2, 35.1, 35.3 Art. 36.2, 37.1, 39.1 Art. 30.3, 45.1 Art. 9.20, 37.6, 37.7 Art. 36.3 Art. 7.11, 9.13, 9.21, 38.2 Art. 33.4, 37.4, 59.4 |
ARTICLES INVOLVING DATES APPLICABLE TO THE MAIN
TAXONOMIC GROUPS
All groups
Algae Bryophytes Fossil Plants Fungi Vascular plants |
Art. 9.20,
9.21,
20.2,
30.1,
30.3,
30.4,
32.5,
33.2,
33.3, 33.4, 33.5, 33.7, 33.8, 34.2, 35.1, 35.2, 35.3, 37.1, 37.4, 37.6, 37.7, 42.3, 44.1, 45.1 Art. 7.7, 13.1(e), 36.2, 39.1 Art. 7.7, 13.1(b), (c) Art. 7.7, 9.13, 13.1(f), 36.3, 38.1, 38.2 Art. 13.1(d), 59.4 Art. 13.1(a) |
ARTICLES DEFINING THE DATES OF CERTAIN WORKS
xviii |
_______________________________________________________________
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 2006 — Vienna Code
– xii –
text: © 2006, IAPT — web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel (all rights reserved)
_______________________________________________________________
[ to body of the 2006, Vienna Code ]