How to change the Code

Sandra KnappNatural History Museum, LondonWith generous sharing of slides

from John McNeill

Div.III.1. The Code may be modified onlyby action of a plenary session of anInternational Botanical Congress on aresolution moved by the NomenclatureSection of that Congress.

How does this happen?

DIVISION III.PROVISIONS FOR

THE GOVERNANCE OF THE CODE

After each new edition of the Code appears, proposals toamend it are published in Taxon, where they are numberedserially.

Shortly prior to the next International Botanical Congress, aSynopsis of proposals assembles all published proposals,organized by Article and Recommendation, and republishesthem with appropriate comments from the Rapporteur-gnral and Vice-rapporteur but without the justificationaccompanying the original publication.

A ballot for the Preliminary Mail Vote (an entirely advisoryopinion from individuals) is sent at the same time as theSynopsis to those entitled to vote, and the ballots aretabulated so that the results are available at theNomenclature Section of the Congress.

The Nomenclature Section, meeting ahead of the mainsessions of the Congress, considers proposals, includingany amendments offered, and acts upon them on the basisof a combination of individual and institutional votes.

Decisions of the Nomenclature Section are ratified by voteof a plenary session of the Congress.

Basic procedure

Basic procedure

IBC plenary ratifiesthe decisions of theNS

New Codepublished

Proposedchangespublishedin Taxon

Synopsis of allproposedchangespublished inTaxon

Mail vote ballots sentto those eligible

NomenclatureSection (NS)meets prior toIBC

NS considers proposedchanges and votes

Editorial Committeewrites the new Code

Division III of the ICN (Provisions for the Governance ofthe Code) provides an outline of the overall organization ofthe nomenclature of algae, fungi, and plants, which ishelpful in understanding the whole process of applying theCode and making changes to it.

The diagram Organizational chart of Nomenclature (ICN 2013) attempts to illustrate the organizational structureof plant nomenclature.

How is it organised?

Org

aniz

atio

nalc

hart

ofN

omen

clat

ure

(ICN

2013

)

Resources Turland, N. 2013. The Code De-Coded. Koeltz Scientific

Books. Brummitt, R.K. 2006. The democratic processes of

botanical nomenclature. Pp. 101129 in Leadlay, E. &Jury, S.L. (eds.), Taxonomy and Plant Conservation.Cambridge University Press.

McNeill, J. & Greuter, W. 1986. Botanical nomenclature.In: Ride, W.D.L. and Youns, T. (eds.), Biologicalnomenclature today. IUBS Monograph Series 2: 326.ICSU Press, Miami, Florida & IRL Press, Eynsham,Oxford, UK.

Org

aniz

atio

nalc

hart

ofN

omen

clat

ure

(ICN

2013

)

Nomenclatural administration IUBS (International Union of Biological

Sciences) and IAMBS(International Associationof Botanical and Mycological Societies -international botanical and mycologicalorganizations that are scientific members ofIUBS) recommend venue for InternationalBotanical Congress (IBC) to be held every 6years from applications received

Venue selected by vote of Plenary Session ofIBC

Shenzhen selected by IAMBS, ratified by IBC inMelbourne

Authority for the Code

Rests with successive InternationalBotanical Congresses (each independentand with own organising committee)

Final Plenary Session of each IBC adoptsthe proposals to amend the Code,approves names proposed forconservation and rejection and appointsRapporteur-gnral and variouscommittees

What if no IBC?

Division III.1 (footnote) authoritytransferred to the International Union ofBiological Sciences (IUBS) or to aninstitution that at the time corresponding toit.

General Committee empowered to definehow this is done.

This is how zoology works

Org

aniz

atio

nalc

hart

ofN

omen

clat

ure

(ICN

2013

)

http://http://www.iapt-taxon.org/

Role of IAPT International Association for Plant

Taxonomy Since 1950 international Scientific member of IUBS and IUMS Supports nomenclature between

Congresses Publishes Taxon, with section for

proposals and other nomenclatural issues

Org

aniz

atio

nalc

hart

ofN

omen

clat

ure

(ICN

2013

)

Bureau of Nomenclature

President (appointed by CongressOrganising Committee COC)

Rapporteur-gnral (elected by previousCongress Nomenclature Section)

Vice-rapporteur (appointed by the COC onthe nomination of the Rapporteur-gnral)

Recorder (appointed by the COC, usuallyfrom country of Congress)

Org

aniz

atio

nalc

hart

ofN

omen

clat

ure

(ICN

2013

)

Composition of NomenclatureSection Individuals who attend in person (one

person = one vote) Institutional representatives or their

proxies (these are also individuals whocan votes as individuals)

Institutional votes based on list of herbariadrawn up by Bureau of Nomenclature andapproved by General Committee varybetween 1 and 7

Institutional votes Under review now. Herbarium can ask another to use their

votes in the Nomenclature Section (proxy) Usually there is an agreement on how the

votes will be deployed BUT. No more than 15 votes (including

personal vote) can be exercised by anyindividual

Institutional votes help to damp the regionalnature of attendance at Congresses

Congress Proposals Ballotsreturned

Regularmembers

Inst. Votes(No. of inst.)

Total votes

Melbourne (2011) 338 140 204 396 (162) 600

Vienna (2005) 312 166 198 402 (170) 600

St. Louis (1999) 215 229 297 494 (231) 791

Tokyo (1993) 321 202 95 361 (148) 456

Berlin (1987) 336 160 157 296 (116) 453

Sydney (1981) 213 187 153 328 (135) 485

Leningrad (1975) 161 ? 165 381 (156) 546

Seattle (1969) 223 ? 200 or so ? ?

Edinburgh (1964) 337 ? 161 202 (87) 363

Montreal (1959) 333 ? 168 266 (101) 434

Paris (1954) 387 355 91 202 (80) 293

Stockholm (1950) 550 ca 200 71 ? ?

Comparative statistics.

McNeill & al. in Taxon 60: 1507. 2011.

Org

aniz

atio

nalc

hart

ofN

omen

clat

ure

(ICN

2013

)

Permanent Committees

Algae (15) Fungi (18) Bryophytes (14) Vascular Plants (19) Fossils (15) General Committee (24 8 ex officio)

Editorial (14) prepares the new Code

Basic procedure

IBC plenary ratifiesthe decisions of theNS

New Codepublished

Proposedchangespublishedin Taxon

Synopsis of allproposedchangespublished inTaxon

Mail vote ballots sentto those eligible

NomenclatureSection (NS)meets prior toIBC

NS considers proposedchanges and votes

Editorial Committeewrites the new Code

Preliminary Mail Vote Div.III.4. The voting on nomenclature proposals is of two

kinds: (a) a preliminary guiding mail vote .

Qualifications for voting: (1) The members of the International Association for

Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) (2) The authors of proposals published in Taxon (3) The members of the Permanent Nomenclature

Committees Note 1. No accumulation or transfer of personal votes is

permissible for the mail ballot

Congress Proposals Ballotsreturned

Regularmembers

Inst. Votes(No. of inst.)

Total votes

Melbourne (2011) 338 140 204 396 (162) 600

Vienna (2005) 312 166 198 402 (170) 600

St. Louis (1999) 215 229 297 494 (231) 791

Tokyo (1993) 321 202 95 361 (148) 456

Berlin (1987) 336 160 157 296 (116) 453

Sydney (1981) 213 187 153 328 (135) 485

Leningrad (1975) 161 ? 165 381 (156) 546

Seattle (1969) 223 ? 200 or so ? ?

Edinburgh (1964) 337 ? 161 202 (87) 363

Montreal (1959) 333 ? 168 266 (101) 434

Paris (1954) 387 355 91 202 (80) 293

Stockholm (1950) 550 ca 200 71 ? ?

Mail ballot indicative only

McNeill & al. in Taxon 60: 1507. 2011.

Mail ballot indicative only Any proposal receiving >75% NO votes in

the mail ballot is not discussed in theNomenclature Section UNLESS..

A proposal is made by an individualattending the Section from the floor and 4others attending second it

Nomenclature Section

First approve the previous Code as abasis for discussion

President of Bureau runs the Section Rapporteur-gnral and Vice-rapporteur

provide the expertise Recorder records decisions and changes Order of business is by Article beginning at

Article 1

Voting

Governed by Division III.4 (who) Majority (>50%) if between two choices Supermajority (>60% or two-thirds) if a

change Usually by show of hands personal votes If close institutional votes come into use Show of cards Card vote by ballot box

Congress Proposals Ballotsreturned

Regularmembers

Inst. Votes(No. of inst.)

Total votes

Melbourne (2011) 338 140 204 396 (162) 600

Vienna (2005) 312 166 198 402 (170) 600

St. Louis (1999) 215 229 297 494 (231) 791

Tokyo (1993) 321 202 95 361 (148) 456

Berlin (1987) 336 160 157 296 (116) 453

Sydney (1981) 213 187 153 328 (135) 485

Leningrad (1975) 161 ? 165 381 (156) 546

Seattle (1969) 223 ? 200 or so ? ?

Edinburgh (1964) 337 ? 161 202 (87) 363

Montreal (1959) 333 ? 168 266 (101) 434

Paris (1954) 387 355 91 202 (80) 293

Stockholm (1950) 550 ca 200 71 ? ?

Comparative statistics.

McNeill & al. in Taxon 60: 1507. 2011.

Card votesDescription Vote type Yes No Total % YesVote 1:Ratify Vienna Code

Inst. 247 136 383 64.5%

Pers. 126 36 162 77.8%

Total 373 172 545 68.4%

Vote 5:Art. 14 Prop. Ge-appendices toMelbourne Code

Inst. 273 110 383 71.3%

Pers. 95 47 142 66.9%

Total 368 157 525 70.1%

Vote 6:New proposal on Art.31 e-publication takespriority

Inst. 177 184 361 49.0%

Pers. 80 66 146 54.8%

Total 257 250 507 50.7%

Vote 11 (card 13):New proposal on Art.8.4lyophilized cultures

Inst. 218 98 316 69.0%

Pers. 72 47 119 60.5%

Total 290 145 435 66.7%

McNeill & al. in Taxon 60: 1510. 2011.

Success rate.

Status Number Percent

Accepted 81 24%

Referred to EditorialCommittee

103 31%

Rejected 154 (39 wdrawn; 24wdrawn in favour ofnew)

46%

Submitted 338 100%

New from floor(accepted)

28 (12)

Ongoing nomenclatural activity

Permanent Nomenclature Committees, mainlyevaluating proposals to modify the application ofthe Code in particular cases (conservation andrejection of names) and ruling on the applicationof two particular provisions of the Code.

Special Committees to investigate matters ofongoing concern and to report to theNomenclature Section of the next IBC (to beheld in Shenzhen, China, in July 2017)

Org

aniz

atio

nalc

hart

ofN

omen

clat

ure

(ICN

2013

)

Permanent Committees

Algae (15) Fungi (18) Bryophytes (14) Vascular Plants (19) Fossils (15) General Committee (24 8 ex officio)

Editorial (14) prepares the new Code

Special Committees on . By-laws for the Nomenclature Section (with a

Subcommittee on governance of the Code withrespect to fungi)

Harmonization of nomenclature of Cyanophyta /Cyanobacteria (to be established in associationwith relevant appointees from the Commission onProkaryote Nomenclature)

Institutional votes Publications using a largely mechanical method

of selection of types (Art. 10.5) (especially underthe American Code)

Registration of algal and plant names (includingfossils)

Resolution from the NomenclatureSection (as accepted 31 July 2011)

The XVIII International Botanical Congress resolves that thedecisions of its Nomenclature Section with respect to theInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature (now to bethe International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi,and plants), as well as the appointment of officers andmembers of the nomenclature committees, made by thatsection during its meetings, 1822 July, be accepted,noting with interest that specified types of electronicpublication are now [i.e. from the implementation date of 1January 2012] effective for nomenclatural purposes, thatdescriptions of new taxa may now appear in English orLatin, that, for valid publication, new names of fungi mustinclude citation of an identifier issued by a recognizedrepository that will register the name, and that the Codewill henceforth provide for a single name for all fungi andfor all fossils falling under its provisions

Permanent Committees

All volunteers institutions often givepeople time to do this community service

More than 100 people involved Consider proposals to conserve and/or

reject names Decentralised administration of botanical

nomenclature (in the hands of thecommunity)

Permanent Committees Algae (15) Fungi (18) Bryophytes (14) Vascular Plants (19) Fossils (15) General Committee (24 8 ex officio)

Editorial (14) prepares the new Code

Major changes Electronic publication of all nomenclatural acts

permitted from 1 January 2012 Latin and English! (from 1 January 2012) One fungus, one name One fossil, maybe one name Registration of fungal names (from 1 January

2013) Appendices of the Code may be in electronic

form Change of title: ICBN to ICN No reversal of conservation of Acacia with A.

penninervis as conserved type

Flow-chart for changes to the Code

Published proposals

Synopsis of proposals

Preliminary mail vote

Nomenclature Section of International Botanical Congress (IBC)

Personal and institutional votes

IBC plenary session

Shenzhen Code

Setting it in action!

IBC plenary ratifiesthe decisions of theNS

New Codepublished

Proposedchangespublishedin Taxon

Synopsis of allproposedchangespublished inTaxon

Mail vote ballots sentto those eligible

NomenclatureSection (NS)meets prior toIBC

NS considers proposedchanges and votes

Editorial Committeewrites the new Code

Setting it in action!

IBC plenary ratifiesthe decisions of theNS

New Codepublished

Proposedchangespublishedin Taxon

Synopsis of allproposedchangespublished inTaxon

Mail vote ballots sentto those eligible

NomenclatureSection (NS)meets prior toIBC

NS considers proposedchanges and votes

Editorial Committeewrites the new Code

..This nomenclature, which we now strive toimprove, will appear like an old scaffolding,laboriously patched together and surrounded by aheap of somewhat embarassing rubbish that hasarisen from the accumulation of successivelyrejected structures. Then perhaps there will arisesomething wholly different to Linnaeannomenclature, something so designed as to givecertain and definite names to certain and definitegroups.

That is the secret of the future, a future still verydistant.

Alphonse de Candolle (1867) Lois de la nomenclature botanique

Meanwhile, let us perfect the systemintroduced by Linnaeus. Let us try to adapt itto the continual and necessary changes inour science.; let us attack abuses andnegligence; and let us come tounderstanding on debated points, ifpossible.

We shall thus have paved the way for thepractice of science for many years to come.

Alphonse de Candolle (1867) Lois de la nomenclature botanique