TheInternational Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN orICNafp) is the set of rules and recommendations dealing with the formalbotanical names that are given to plants, fungi and a few other groups of organisms, all those "traditionally treated as algae, fungi, or plants".[1]: Preamble, para. 8 It was formerly called theInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN); the name was changed at theInternational Botanical Congress inMelbourne in July 2011 as part of theMelbourne Code[2] which replaced theVienna Code of 2005.
The current version of the code is theShenzhen Code adopted by theInternational Botanical Congress held inShenzhen, China, in July 2017. As with previous codes, it took effect as soon as it was ratified by the congress (on 29 July 2017), but the documentation of the code in its final form was not published until 26 June 2018. For fungi theCode was revised by theSan Juan Chapter F in 2018.[3] The 2025 edition of ICBN, theMadrid Code, which reflects the decisions of the Twentieth International Botanical Congress met inMadrid, Spain, in July 2024, is prepared to be published in July 2025.[4]
The name of theCode is partly capitalized and partly not. The lower-case for "algae, fungi, and plants" indicates that these terms are not formal names ofclades, but indicate groups of organisms that were historically known by these names and traditionally studied byphycologists,mycologists, andbotanists. This includes blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria);fungi, includingchytrids,oomycetes, andslime moulds;photosyntheticprotists andtaxonomically related non-photosynthetic groups. There are special provisions in theICN for some of these groups, as there are forfossils.
TheICN can only be changed by an International Botanical Congress (IBC), with theInternational Association for Plant Taxonomy providing the supporting infrastructure. Each new edition supersedes the earlier editions and is retroactive back to 1753, except where different starting dates are specified.[1]: Principle VI
Botanical nomenclature is independent of zoological, bacteriological, and viral nomenclature (seeNomenclature codes).
A botanical name is fixed to a taxon by atype.[1]: Article 7 This is almost invariably dried plant material and is usually deposited and preserved in aherbarium, although it may also be an image or a preserved culture. Some type collections can be viewed online at the websites of the herbaria in question.
A guiding principle inbotanical nomenclature ispriority, the first publication of a name for a taxon.[1]: Principle III The formal starting date for purposes of priority is 1 May 1753, the publication ofSpecies Plantarum byLinnaeus. However, to avoid undesirable (destabilizing) effects of strict enforcement of priority,conservation of family, genus, and species names is possible.
The intent of the Code is that each taxonomic group ("taxon", plural "taxa") of plants has only onecorrect name that is accepted worldwide, provided that it has the samecircumscription, position andrank.[1]: Principle IV The value of a scientific name is that it is anidentifier; it is not necessarily of descriptive value.
Names of taxa are treated as Latin.
The rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless there is an explicit statement that this does not apply.
The rules governing botanical nomenclature have a long and tumultuous history, dating back to dissatisfaction with rules that were established in 1843 to govern zoological nomenclature.[5] The first set of international rules was theLois de la nomenclature botanique ("Laws of botanical nomenclature") that was adopted as the "best guide to follow for botanical nomenclature"[5] at an "International Botanical Congress" convened inParis in 1867.[6][7] Unlike modern Codes, it contained recommendations for naming to serve as the basis for discussions on the controversial points of nomenclature, rather than obligatory rules for validly published and legitimate names within the Code.[5] It was organized as six sections with 68 articles in total.
Multiple attempts to bring more "expedient" or more equitable practice to botanical nomenclature resulted in several competing codes, which finally reached a compromise with the 1930 congress.[5] In the meantime, the second edition of the international rules followed theVienna congress in 1905. These rules were published as theRègles internationales de la Nomenclature botanique adoptées par le Congrès International de Botanique de Vienne 1905 (or in English,International rules of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the International Botanical Conference of Vienna 1905). Informally they are referred to as theVienna Rules (not to be confused with theVienna Code of 2006).
Some but not all subsequent meetings of the International Botanical Congress have produced revised versions of theseRules, later called theInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature, and thenInternational Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.
The Nomenclature Section of the 18th International Botanical Congress in Melbourne, Australia (2011) made major changes:[2][8][9][10]
TheCode now permits electronic-only publication of names of new taxa; no longer will it be a requirement to deposit some paper copies in libraries.
The requirement for a Latin validating diagnosis or description was changed to allow either English or Latin for these essential components of the publication of a new name (Article 39).
As an experiment with "registration of names", new fungal descriptions require the use of an identifier from "a recognized repository"; there are two recognized repositories so far,Index Fungorum[11] andMycoBank.
^John McNeill, 2011. Important decisions of the Nomenclature Section of the XVIII International Botanical Congress, Melbourne, 18–22 July 2011.Botanical Electronic News,ISSN1188-603X,441Archived 2021-05-12 at theWayback Machine