Movatterモバイル変換

                CONGRESS ACTION, VII IBC (1950)

Congress action on proposals-to-amend-the-Code at the VII IBC,
the 1950, Stockholm Congress.  Based on the Proceedings (in
Regnum Veg. 1, 1953, by permission of the IAPT).  This was
the first Congress at which a preliminary mail vote was held,
an innovation made by the Rapporteur, on his own responsibility.

Links go to the relevant page of a document, either at a website
(BHL, Cyberliber) or of a PDF, a local copy (copyright varies:
the IAPT, Kew Gardens, etc).  In the case of PDF’s made by
JSTOR a link may be off by one page (browser-dependent; some
browsers do not count the page added by JSTOR).

See also:

   •  conversion table
   •  list of proposals
 

This overview is not as easily accessible as those for later
Congresses.  There are several reasons for this.
     Firstly, not all proposals are available, and for some all that is
known is what has been included in theSynopsis.  Quite a few
proposals were not published, but were only submitted in physical
form (this was supposed to be in the form of a hundred physical
copies).  Apparently, some proposals existed only as a single
physical copy.  Of those proposals that were published, many are
still in copyright (fortunately, a comforting number of these have
been included in BHL and Cyberliber, and the Board of Trustees
of Kew Gardens kindly gave permission to use some publications).
     For another thing, what was numbered at this time are not
individual proposals, but rather submissions to the Congress
(usually these are sets of proposals).  Some proposals are
associated with more than one submission.  A few submissions
were just numbered twice.  Others gather up proposals already
made elsewhere.  A case in point is the 1950–62,Brittonia
submission which is a miniature synopsis, a collection of the
actual changes proposed, with votes and comments by American
taxonomists, while the complete proposals (giving the background
and arguments) may be found in another submission.  In the case
of Furtado, there is often an original proposal (in 1940–09, of
1939) and a later addition (in 1950–83, of 1949); this may be a
repeat of the proposal, an emendation, or even a complete
replacement of the earlier proposal (in the case of a complete
replacement the earlier proposal was not included in the
Synopsis).
     A complicating factor is that what is presented as a proposal
in theSynopsis does not necessarily accord exactly with what
the proposer intended to be a proposal (that is, several original
proposals may have been joined into oneSynopsis-proposal, or
the reverse, one original proposal may have been split into
severalSynopsis-proposals).  Also, the presentation of proposals
in the preliminary mail vote falls a little short of being an exact
match of the presentation of proposals in theSynopsis.
     A further potential source of confusion is that some proposals
were aimed at amending theCambridge Rules (theInternational
Rules, Ed. 3), without taking into account what had been decided
at Amsterdam (notably the proposals by Wheeler).

Prior to the Stockholm Congress, there was a pre-conference at
Utrecht in 1948, attended by an international company of nineteen
botanists.  This considered the proposals then available, mainly the
following submissions:
• 1940–01 by Wheeler,
• 1940–06 by Rehder,
• 1940–09 by Furtado,
• 1940–10 by Handel-Mazzetti,
• 1940–12 by Fosberg,
• 1940–13 by Bolle,
• 1940–14 by British Botanists,
• 1950–62 by American Taxonomists (a preliminary version).
     As some of the early proposals by Furtado (in 1940–09) were
emended or completely replaced by himself in his second set of
proposals (1950–83), and in the case of a replacement, the original
proposal was not included in theSynopsis, the advice by the
Utrecht conference does not necessarily apply on a one-to-one
basis (or at all) to the proposals in theSynopsis.
     In the course of its deliberations, the Utrecht conference came
up with some additional proposals of its own, which were included
in theSynopsis, and which also can be found in the minutes
of the Utrecht conference, published inChronica botanica.
     Note that the minutes of the Utrecht conference also include
some relevant material not found elsewhere, including some
proposals that had been supposed to go into theSynopsis (some of
which were even effected).

The American taxonomists did something similar for the American
proposals, with a total of fifty-five scientists voting.
     Their final results were published inBrittonia (1950–62). Prior to
that, a delegation had attended the Utrecht conference, bringing a
preliminary version of their work.
     Not all American proposals are included in theSynopsis: if it was
voted down by the joint American taxonomists, that was usually the
end of it; it was still included in theBrittonia-paper but anonymized
and in a different font-size.  Since it had been voted down already
once, it was (usually) not included in theSynopsis (this does not
apply to a proposal that had already been published independently;
also, some proposals were included anyway).

                  a suggestion to expand the new Article was referred to
                  the Editorial Committee.

                 modified by the Utrecht conference (which treated
                 Art. 10 Prop. 1, Art. 11 Prop. 1 and Art. 12 Prop. 1 as a
                 single proposal) and recommended by that conference,
                 the Committee for Fungi having no objection to it, was
                 accepted as amended by the suggestion of the Rapporteur:

                   “For nomenclatural purposes, the species is regarded as
                    the central taxon”.

                [the Rapporteur’s suggestion was attacked, that instead
                 of  “fossil plants”  it should read  “botanical fossils”]

                [also rejected were motions to replace  “divisio”  by 
                 “phylum” (Papenfuss) and to replace  “divisio”  by 
                 “divisio orphylum” (Lanjouw)]

                 Since in the algae characters are based on the colony
                 (Patrick), a motion (Sprague) was accepted, to delete
                 the word “individual”.

                 these two proposals were referred to the Committee
                 for Fungi, which recommended that  “forma biologica”
                 and succeeding words be deleted from Prop. 1 and that
                 the rest of Prop. 1 be adopted. Prop 2 to be rejected.

                 was accepted as amended (Sprague):  “For categories
                 specially applicable to the genetic analyses of taxa see
                 Art. 34ter, 34quater, 35quinquies.”

                 an amendment (Rogers) was moved to add:

                  “An exception is made for names of subgenera in
                    Fries’sSystema Mycologicum, which are treated as
                    validly published although he termed them “tribes”
                    (tribus).”

                 The proposal and the amendment were referred to the
                 Committee for Fungi which strongly recommended the
                 amendment. A rewording for the first sentence had been
                 suggested by the Utrecht conference (Hylander):

                   “Names given to taxa placed in categories denoted by
                    misplaced terms are treated as not validlypublished”.

                 was withdrawn, but the following sentences (Fosberg)
                 were referred to the Editorial Committee:

                    “An epithet is not considered illegitimate only because
                     it was originally published under an illegitimate generic
                     name, but must be taken into consideration for purposes
                     of priority if the epithet and the respective combination
                     are in other respects in accordance with the Rules.  In
                     the same way, an epithet of a subspecies or a taxon of a
                     lower rank may be legitimate even if originally published
                     under an illegitimate name of the subsequent higher taxon.”

          The Synopsis and the preliminary mail vote have a proposal
          here on a “New Appendix” (1950–70 by Fosberg) which
          further on is assigned the number App. I Prop. 2; it was
          accepted as amended.

              [the Utrecht conference strongly disagreed with this
               proposal: Art. 20 deals with the starting-points of
               botanical nomenclature, not of taxonomy.  The Rules
               prescribe no starting point for taxonomy, or for effective
               publication; thus, it is perfectly all right for names to be
               based on pre-Linnaean descriptions and/or illustrations]

              was accepted as amended to include a definite date
              (Ramsbottom), namely 1 May for theSpecies
              Plantarum (Rollins) and either 1 Jan. or 31 Dec. (at the
              discretion of the Editorial Committee) for all other works
              (Lanjouw/Ross).

              these two proposals were referred to the Committee for
              Fungi which urged to replace Art. 20 (f) by:

                “(f) Fungi caeteri, 1821 (FRIES,Systema mycologicum
                 Vol. I). Vol. I of theSystema is treated as having appeared
                 Jan. 1, 1821, and theElenchus fungorum 1828 is
                 considered to be a part of theSystema.  Names of Fungi
                 caeteri published in other works between the dates of the
                 first and last parts of theSystema which are synonyms or
                 homonyms of names of any of the Fungi caeteri included
                 in theSystema do not affect the nomenclatorial status of
                 names used by FRIES in this work.”

                 was accepted as amended (Lanjouw) to replace  “families
                 and genera”  by  “genera and taxa of a higher rank”.

              was amended (Sprague) so that (f) was replaced by a
              Rule that the rules of priority and typification should not
              apply to names of taxa above the rank of order; this new
              Rule was accepted.
                  It was further amended (Bremekamp resp. Boivin) to
              delete (d) and (e); the proposal, thus amended (minus (d),
              (e), and (f)) was accepted, in principle.
                  Later, after further deliberation, it was proposed to
              amend (a) and (b) so
              - that the endings for subdivisions be-phytina (instead of
                -phytea), for all groups except Fungi, in which divisions
                 should end in-mycota, subdivisions in-mycotina;
              - that in (b) sub 1, first line, the words in parentheses
                 “(or autotrophicThallophyta generally)”  be deleted;
              - that in (b) sub 2, first line, the words in parentheses
                 “(or heterotrophicThallophyta generally)”  be deleted.
              Thus amended, it was again accepted.  It was further
              proposed to change  “order”  to  “family”  in the new
              Rule (of (f)); this amendment in the Rule was accepted,
              but then referred to the Editorial Committee.

                 these two proposed rephrasings of the first sentence were
                  referred to the Editorial Committee, with a suggested
                  rephrasing (Sprague):  “Botanists who are forming
                  generic namesshould comply with the following
                 Recommendations”.

                 was accepted as amended, as suggested by the
                 Rapporteur, namely only the last paragraph and its
                 Example.
                     In the discussion on this, it was emphasized (Dandy)
                 that the name of a subdivision of a genus consists of a
                 generic name and a subdivisional epithet, connected by
                 a term.

                 inspired by Rec. XI Prop. 1, was accepted as amended,
                 by the deletion of  “if no earlier legitimate name is
                 available”  (Baehni) and by using  “subgenus”  instead
                 of  “subdivision”  (Hylander).

                 the Utrecht conference had agreed (Hylander,
                 Sprague) thatArt. 68(1) and(2) should be part of
                Art. 27, and had recommended to have these
                 paragraphs in both Art. 27 and Art. 68.

                 the Utrecht conference having suggested to add  “(and
                 similar token words)”;  it was pointed out (Donk, Boivin)
                 that the word  “illegitimate”  here should be replaced by
                 “not validly published”.  Pending a rephrasing, the
                 proposal was accepted.

             The Utrecht conference had recommended to delete
             “(binary names)”  and  “(ternary names)”  from the
             headings in§ 4 and§ 5, respectively.

                 (the Utrecht conference having recommended a new
                 wording for the new Article proposed as a replacement
                 for Rec. XVIII, and the American taxonomists being
                 undecided), it was agreed to delete Rec. XVIII and to
                 refer the whole matter to the Editorial Committee, to be
                 considered together with Art. 28 Prop. 3, Art. 28 Prop. 7,
                 Art. 30bis (new) and Rec. XXXV Prop. 3.

              was accepted as amended (Sprague) the recommendation
              to be rephrased 
                “Botanists proposing new epithets for subdivisions of
                 species should avoid such as have been used previously
                for species in the same genus.” 
              (as the Index Kewensis did not register names of
              infraspecific taxa, making it impractical to check these).

         The report of the special committee for names of cultivated
         plants instituted by the Utrecht conference was presented and
         discussed.  Their proposals were accepted, but the provision
         on apomicts was to be a Recommendation instead of a Rule,
         and the whole was to be a separate Appendix.  For details see
         below: § 6 toArt. 35 (plusArt. 44quater).

                         was accepted as amended by the committee:

                         “§ 6. Names of hybrids and some other special
                                  categories”.

                was accepted with the following modifications:

                 • “Hybrids or putative hybrids between two species of ...”
                    etc.
                 • (3rd paragraph, line 2): “is distinguished from the latter
                    by the sign × before the binary (“specific”) epithet.”
                 • Examples: (consult Mr Stearn).
                 • Note l: (line 2), change “will” to “may”.
                 • An additional proposal (Camp) was accepted to insert
                   in Art. 31:

                    “When Latin “specific” names for hybrids are used, all
                      offspring of crossing between individuals of the same
                      parent species receive the same specific name.”

               was accepted as amended:

                • “Hybrids or putative hybrids between infraspecific taxa
                    of the same species may be designated by a formula
                    and, wherever it seems useful or necessary, by a name
                   of the same taxonomic rank as the parents or, if these
                   are of different rank, that of the higher rankingparent.
                    In the formula the order of theepithets and the use of [...].”
                •   Examples: (to be supplied by Mr Stearn).
                •   New Note, adapted from Art. 32 Prop. 5:
                    - adopt the lst paragraph
                    - Examples: (to be corrected by Mr Stearn)
                    - delete Hylander’s “Note”

                was accepted with the addition of

                 • “Note 1. “Hybrid subgenera” and “hybrid sections” may
                     be named in the same way.”
                 • “Examples:Iris subg. ×Regeliocyclus, including the
                     hybrids between species belonging to subg.Regelia and
                     to subg.Oncocyclus, respectively.”   (Have Mr. Stearn
                     check example.)
                 • “Note 2. The binary (“specific”) epithet of an intergeneric
                     hybrid must not be placed under the name of either of the
                     parent genera.”
                 •   (Mr Stearn can furnish examples where this unfortunate
                     practice has been used – if thought advisable to include
                     in text.)

                was accepted as amended:
                 •   first line, change “Terniary” to “Ternary”,
                 •   third line, change “polygeneric” to “multigeneric”,
                 •   Art. 33bis Prop. to be considered in Appendix VII,
                 •   Rec. XX to be deleted.

                 was accepted as amended:
                 • accept first paragraph (delete Example and Note)
                 • add a second paragraph, modified from Art. 34 Prop. 4:

                     “These forms are recognized as nothomorphs; when
                      desirable they may be designated by an epithet
                      preceded by the binary name of the group and the term
                      nothomorph (nothomorpha, abbreviated asnm.), in the
                      same way as subdivisions of species are classed under
                      the binary name of the species.”

                 • Example:Mentha ×niliaca nm.Lamarckii. (Mr Stearn
                    probably could furnish a better example.)

              these four proposals were rejected by the committee, in
              favour of a new proposal, accepted by the Section, for a
              new Recommendation (to follow Art. 34.):
              •  “Taxa which are apomicts may, if so desired, be
                   designated in the following manner:”
              •  “1) If they are considered as of specific rank, by the
                   intercalation of the abbreviation “ap.” between the
                   generic name and the epithet.”
              •  “2) If they are considered as of infraspecific rank, by the
                   intercalation of the abbreviation “ap.” between the
                   category term and the infraspecific epithet.”
              •  “In the case of an infraspecific category of a species which
                   is wholly apomictic, the abbreviation “ap.” is placed solely
                   between the generic name and the specific epithet.”
              •   Examples: (to be supplied by Mr Stearn).
              •  “Taxa which are clones may, if so desired, be designated in
                   the same way as for apomicts, except that the abbreviation
                   “cl.” or the symbol CL is used in place of “ap.”.”
              •   Examples: [to be supplied]Hemerocallis fulva cl.Europa.

                        was accepted as amended (by the committee) to read: 
                           “§ 7. Names of plants in cultivation”

                 was accepted as amended, a new composite replacement
                 for Art. 35 :

                 •  “Plants brought into cultivation from the wild and
                      which differ in no fundamental way from the parent
                      stocks bear the same names as are applied to the same
                      species and subdivisions of species in nature.”
                 •  “Plants arising in cultivation through hybridization,
                      mutation, or other processes which tend to establish
                      recognizable differences from the parent stocks
                      receive epithets preferably in common language
                      (“fancy” epithets) markedly different from the Latin
                      epithets of species or varieties.”
                 •  “Detailed regulations for the nomenclature of plants in
                      cultivation appear in Appendix VII.”

                with the suggestion (Sprague) that  “Up to and including”
                might be clearer than  “Through”.

                was accepted as amended to include a date (Camp),
                namely 1 Jan. 1952 (Hylander).

                by Wehmeyer & Stevenson was rejected (more than 75%
                no-votes) but in later discussion an element was extracted,
                which was accepted:  “or the issue of microfilm made
                from manuscripts”.

                but the Note referred to the Editorial Committee.

               an Example fromSelaginella was suggested (Rogers).

               was accepted as amended: the first part of the former was
               combined with the last sentence of the latter.

             was accepted as amended (Hylander), first sentence only.

                (the Utrecht conference finding it mostly superfluous)
                was accepted as amended (de Wit), first two paragraphs
                only.

                 (the Utrecht conference finding it the same as Art. 41
                 Prop. 1 and suggesting to leave the choice to the Editorial
                 Committee) was referred to the Editorial Committee, which
                 would consider:
                 • replacing  “its author, date, and place of publication”  by
                   “proper bibliographic reference”  (Boivin),
                 • adding  “however” after  “new combinations”  (Lanjouw)
                 • and a new Note (Stearn):

                    “An error of citation resulting from a misprint or the
                      author’s ignorance of the precise date of publication
                      does not, however, invalidate the transfer or new name.”

                 Also, the Utrecht conference had recommended to add a
                 definition of basionym.

              by Fosberg to the Utrecht conference (in response to and
              inspired byArt. 37 Prop. 6); there was discussion on
              Art. 37bis which had not been rendered quite as agreed at
              Amsterdam.  It was suggested (Donk) to replace “but” in
              the first line by “or”.  The proposal was accepted as thus
              amended and by the deletion of the Note (Fosberg).
                    A new motion on alternative names (Rickett, amended
              Sprague) was accepted, with exact wording to be left to
              the Editorial Committee:  “On and from Jan. lst., 1952
              alternative names shall be treated as not validly published.”

                  the first part was accepted (and referred to the Editorial
                 Committee), the second part was referred to the
                  Committee on Paleobotanical Nomenclature.

              was accepted as amended (Camp):
               •  in line 1, to delete the words “or a mixomorph”;
               •  in the Note, to place a full stop after “status”, and
                  delete the rest.

             The Utrecht conference had also accepted a proposal
             (Humbert) for a new recommendation on unispecific
             genera, namely to preferably publish separate generic
             (detailing generic characters) and specific (detailing
             specific characters) descriptions (see also the similar
             proposal, Rec. XXbis, by Savile & Boivin).

               suggestions to supplement  “generic name”  by adding
               specific name and subspecific name (Donk) and to delete
               “chimaera”  (Dandy) were referred to the Editorial
               Committee.

            Art. 44quater (new) was proposed by the special committee
                on nomenclature for cultivated plants (see above) as a
                replacement for the proposed Art. 42bis and 42ter: it was
                accepted by the Section:

                • “For purposes of valid publication, names in Latin form
                    given to hybrids are subject to the same rules as those of
                    non-hybrid taxa of the corresponding rank.”
                • “Note: the parentage, so far as known, should be indicated.”

             was accepted as amended, to read  “and if possible where it
             is preserved.”.

             was accepted as amended (Fosberg) to replace the first part
             of the Recommendation only. The Utrecht conference had
             recommended to replace  “invalid”  by  “not validly
             published”.

           was split into two, a recommendation dealing with illegitimate
           names and one with nomina nuda; both were accepted.

                 the proposals on Art. 48 were dealt with together,
                 except Prop. 4, which was rejected. These proposals all
                 focussed on the second part of Art. 48, and the Section
                 agreed to replace this by a Recommendation as
                 suggested by the Rapporteur:

                    “When a name with a description or reference to a
                     description by one author is published in a work by
                     another author, it is recommended to use the wordin
                     to connect the names of the two authors.”

                  but the final word  “brackets”  to be  “parentheses”.

             A suggestion (Mattfeld) to replace:  “(Br. for Brown)”  by
             “(R. Br. for Robert Brown; A. Br. for Alexander
             Braun)”  was referred to the Editorial Committee.

          the Utrecht conference finding it unnecessary, and the
          American taxonomists finding it the same as XXXIIsepties);
          the second part was referred to the Editorial Committee.

       the Section accepted the suggestion of the Rapporteur to just
       delete Rec. XXXII quinquies.

                 the Utrecht conference advising in favour of the first
                 sentence, was accepted as a separate Article and
                 referred to the Editorial Committee  [in fact, this had
                 already been accepted at Amsterdam].

                 these three proposals were referred to the Committee for
                 Fungi, which voted to recommend the adoption of the
                 following text in place of the present Art. 57:
                 • “InAscomycetes andBasidiomycetes with two or more
                     states in the life cycle (except when they are lichen fungi),
                     but not inPhycomycetes, the first valid name or epithet
                     applied to the perfect state takes precedence. The perfect
                     state is that which bears asci in theAscomycetes, which
                     consists of the spores giving rise to basidia in the
                    Uredinales and of the chlamydospores in the
                    Ustilaginales, or which bears basidia in the remaining
                    Basidiomycetes. The type specimen of a state must bear
                     that state. However, the provisions of this article shall not
                     be construed as preventing the use of names of imperfect
                     states in works referring to such states.”
                 • “The author who first describes a perfect state may use
                     the specific epithet of the corresponding imperfect state,
                     but his binomial for the perfect state is to be attributed
                     to him alone, and is not to be regarded as a transfer.”
                 • “When not already available, binomials for imperfect states
                     may be proposed at the time of publication of a perfect
                     state or later, using either the specific epithet of the
                     perfect state or any other epithet available”.

                 the Utrecht conference advising to accept the first two
                 paragraphs, was dealt with in parts: the first paragraph was
                 accepted, the rest not. The remnant of the recommendation
                 was referred to the Editorial Committee.

              The minutes of the Utrecht conference have a proposal (XI
              in 1950–05) by van Steenis that the heading of Section 12
              should read  “Rejection of names and epithets”,  this had
              been accepted by the Utrecht conference.

                 was rejected, but it was agreed to replace  “badly chosen”
                 by  “inappropriate” (Lanjouw) and to insert  “legitimate”
                 (Hylander) in Art. 59.

                 also, it was pointed out that the example of
                Tetragonolobus Scandalida Scop. should be deleted.

               In addition a proposal to have a Committee onnomina
              specifica rejicienda was rejected.

            This submission 1950–45 by Rogers has two proposals on
            Art. 64, of which the second was:

               “Names given toLichenes are considered to apply to the
               fungal component only.”

            The Utrecht conference had referred this proposal to the
            Committees for Fungi and for Lichens, while the American
            taxonomists advised against it. Somehow, it was not included
            in theSynopsis, but it does appear to have contributed to the
            composite proposal of the Committee for Fungi (presented
            by Rogers himself), that was accepted by the Section.

          Art. 62, 63, and 64 were discussed together. 
          • A proposal (Smith, amended Rogers, Roth, Sprague) to
            delete Art. 63 and Rec. XXXVII was accepted. 
          • Art. 62 Prop. 2 (1950–29 by Mansfeld & Rothmaler) was
            accepted as amended to eliminate  “owing to segregation”
            (Sprague) and to eliminate the list ofnomina ambigua
            (Lanjouw?).  There was a feeling (Boivin, Dandy) that the
            example ofAlsine should not be retained.  The Editorial
            Committee was asked (Polunin) to replace the word 
            “permanent”  by  “persistent”.
          • As to Art. 64, it was proposed (Lanjouw, Boivin) and
            accepted to also delete the list ofnomina confusa.  Also, the
            Section accepted the composite proposal of the Committee
            for Fungi, based on Prop. 2, 4 and 8 [and the proposal by
            Rogers], Art. 64 to read:

             -  “A name of a taxonomic group must be rejected if the
                 characters of that group were derived from two or more
                 entirely discordant elements, unless it is possible to select
                one of these elements as a satisfactory type.”
             -  “For nomenclatural purposes names given to lichens shall
                 be considered as applying to their fungal components, but
                 shall be subject to the provisions of Art. 20 (d).”

                 it was proposed (Dandy) and accepted to retain Art. 65
                 unchanged, pending study before and at the next Congress.

            TheSynopsis presents a proposal (1950–48 by Hylander) to
                replace the entire section on orthography by ten new
                Articles. The preliminary mail vote and the proceedings
                treat these as ten separate proposals. These were all
                rejected (more than 75% no votes in the preliminary mail
                vote), although the Editorial Committee would study them.

                 was accepted as amended (Schopf), the second sentence
                 to read:

                    “When two or more generic names are so similar, and
                      the plants so closely related, as to cause confusion,
                      they are to be treated as variants of the same name.”

                 and referred to the Editorial Committee.

           was initially accepted. However, at the close of the Section,
           this decision was reversed in favour of Prop. 6 (which
           initially had been automatically rejected, with more than
           75% no-votes in the mail vote).

        was rejected, but the proposed Art. 80 was referred to the
        Editorial Committee.

  The report of the Committee on Palaeobotanical Nomenclature was
  accepted, including the new Appendix, but the matter of the starting
  point was deferred until a later Congress.

  The Committee for Typification reported; the proposals on Art. 18
  up to, and including, Rec. VII had been referred to it. It presented
  replacement proposals thatwere accepted. [However, see also the
  new Art. 68]

  A draft Guide for Determination of Types (theproposed App. I)
  was presented (based on1950–70 by Fosberg); this was also
  accepted.

 
Abbreviations used
Alston & al. = Alston, Ballard & Holttum
Am. c. myc. = American committees on mycological nomenclature
Bisby & Stev. = Bisby & Stevenson
c.nom., ASPT = committee on nomenclature,
                      American Society of Plant Taxonomists
H. Thomas = Hamshaw Thomas
Horn & Olsen = Horn Af Rantzien & Olsen
Melville & Milne-Redh. = Melville & Milne-Redhead
Rehder & al. = Rehder, Palmer & Croizat
Sm. & Wehm. = A.H. Smith & Wehmeyer

 
Procedure

•  Voting was by simple majority, although the majority had to be
   significant.
•  It was proposed (Rogers) and accepted that the Section would deal
   mostly with proposals that received less than 3/4 and more than 1/4
   of the preliminary vote.  That is, any proposal that had received more
   than 75% yes-votes in the preliminary mail vote was accepted
   without further vote and any proposal that had received more than
   75% no-votes was rejected without further vote.  This applied from
   Art. 10 Prop. 6 onwards.
•  Later it was proposed (Camp) and agreed to lower this from 3/4
    to 2/3 of the preliminary mail vote.  This applied to the proposals
    treated after Art. 21 Prop. 9.
    - “no (mail vote)”    : rejected because of the mail vote (2/3 no-votes)
    - “no [mail vote]”    : rejected, with more than 75% no-votes in the
                                    mail vote
    - “no ([mail vote])” : rejected because of the mail vote (2/3 or 3/4
                                    no-votes), with more than 75% no-votes in the
                                    mail vote
•  A proposal (Gilmour) was accepted that no speaker be allowed more
    than two minutes, and that no speaker be allowed to speak on the same
    proposal more than once without special permission from the Chair.

 
Committees established:

 •  Committee to deal with Urgent Nomenclatural Needs, to “consider
    all proposals for reconciling conflicting views on questions of
    nomenclature held by very large sections of botanists and plant
    users, and to recommend possible solutions with the least delay”.
       [Not to be confused with theStanding Committee for Urgent
        Taxonomic Needs with a quite different mandate, and not
        established by the Nomenclature Section]

 •  A proposal to have a Committee onnomina specifica rejicienda
    was rejected.
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This page: 2015 ©, Paul van Rijckevorsel
              all rights reserved