Movatterモバイル変換

                                     PREFACE
 

The XVIII International Botanical Congress held in Melbourne, Australia
in July 2011 made a number of very significant changes in the rules gov-
erning what has long been termed botanical nomenclature, although
always covering algae and fungi as well as green plants. This edition of
theCode embodies these decisions, the first of which that must be noted
is the change in its title. Since the VII International Botanical Congress in
Stockholm in 1950, successive editions of theCode have been published as
theInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature, commonly abbreviated
asICBN. In Melbourne, reflecting the view, particularly amongst mycolo-
gists, that the word “Botanical” was misleading and could imply that the
Code covered only green plants and excluded fungi and diverse algal lin-
eages, it was agreed that the name be changed toInternational Code of
Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. In referring to theCode under
its new title, we will use the abbreviationICN.

The rules that govern the scientific naming of algae, fungi, and green plants
are revised at Nomenclature Section meetings at successive International
Botanical Congresses. As noted above, this edition of theCode embod-
ies the decisions of the XVIII Congress in Melbourne in 2011. It super-
sedes theVienna Code, published six years ago subsequent to the XVII
International Botanical Congress in Vienna, Austria and like its immediate
predecessors, it is written entirely in (British) English. TheVienna Code
was translated into Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, and Turkish;
it is therefore anticipated that theMelbourne Code, too, will become avail-
able in several languages.

TheMelbourne Code represents a much more substantial revision to the
rules of nomenclature than has been the case with any other recent edi-
tion of theCode. This is not only due to the important changes accepted in
Melbourne, but also because the Editorial Committee was instructed to re-
organize the rules on valid publication of names in a more logical manner
(see below), and took upon itself a more thorough examination of the over-
all clarity and consistency of theCode. However, despite this, the overall
presentation and arrangement of the remaining text of theMelbourne Code
remains broadly similar to that in theVienna Code. A key is provided (pp.
xxiii–xxviii) to the Articles, Notes, and Recommendations renumbered
between theVienna andMelbourne Codes.

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– ix –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

More strikingly, it was agreed in Melbourne that the Appendices (other
than App. I on the nomenclature of hybrids) need no longer be pub-
lished along with the main text, and indeed may be published only elec-
tronically. Consequently this volume comprises only the main text of the
Code, that is the Preamble, Division I Principles, Division II Rules and
Recommendations, Division III Provisions for the Governance of the
Code, Appendix I Names of Hybrids, the Glossary, the Index of scientific
names, and the Subject index. A separate volume comprising Appendices
II–VIII will be published later, both as a printed volume and electronically.
Appendices II–VI will cover conserved and rejected names and suppressed
works as in theVienna Code, but App. VII and VIII are new and reflect a
decision of the Melbourne Congress to include in Appendices the binding
decisions underArt. 38.4 of thisCode on whether or not to treat a name
as validly published when it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement
satisfies the requirement for a “description or diagnosis” and those under
Art. 53.5 on whether or not to treat names as homonyms when it is doubtful
whether they or their epithets are sufficiently alike to be confused.

In addition to the change in the title of theCode and the separation of the
Appendices, there were five other major changes to the rules of nomencla-
ture adopted in Melbourne: the acceptance of certain forms of electronic
publication; the option of using English as an alternative to Latin for the
descriptions or diagnoses of new taxa of non-fossil organisms; the require-
ment for registration as a prerequisite for valid publication of new names
of fungi; the abolition of the provision for separate names for fungi with
a pleomorphic life history; and the abandonment of the morphotaxon con-
cept in the nomenclature of fossils.

The Nomenclature Section approved overwhelmingly the series of propos-
als prepared by the Special Committee on Electronic Publication set up by
the Vienna Congress in 2005 (seeChapman & al. in Taxon 59: 1853–1862.
2010). This means that it is no longer necessary for new names of plants,
fungi, and algae (and designations of types) to appear in printed matter in
order to be effectively published. As an alternative, publication online in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in a publication with an International
Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or International Standard Book Number
(ISBN) is permitted. The Special Committee had proposed 1 January 2013
as the starting date for the new rules (the beginning of the year following the
expected publication of this edition of theCode), but the Section believed
implementation so important that it decided to bring the date forward to
1 January 2012. As this was ahead of publication of theCode and because of

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– x –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

the significance of the change, a paper reporting the details of the decision
and incorporating a draft of the new rules was published in September 2011
almost simultaneously in 17 journals, and has been translated from English
into eight languages (see e.g.Knapp & al. in Taxon 60: 1498–1501. 2011).

The provision for electronic publication by PDF in an online publication
with an ISSN or ISBN is included inArt. 29, and the circumstances that
do not constitute effective publication, both electronically and otherwise,
are set out inArt. 30. In the case of electronic publication, these circum-
stances include the publication being a preliminary one, and any altera-
tions made after effective publication.Article 31, dealing with the date of
effective publication, includes matter peculiar to electronic publication.
Recommendation 29A sets out a series of recommendations on best prac-
tice in electronic publishing, particularly with regard to long-term archiv-
ing, and 12 new Examples are provided inArt. 29–31 addressing a number
of situations that arise with electronic publication.

The requirement that for valid publication of the name of a new taxon a
Latin description or diagnosis be provided goes back to theVienna Rules
of 1906 (Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot. 1906). It was not, however, a
feature of the rivalAmerican Code of 1907 (Arthur & al. in Bull. Torrey Bot.
Club 34: 167–178. 1907) and so, when the schism was healed in 1930 at the
V International Botanical Congress in Cambridge, U.K., the effective date
was moved forward to 1 January 1935. Names of algae and fossils were ini-
tially exempt from the requirement; for the former it was later required from
1 January 1958, whereas for the latter, the first language restriction came at
the Tokyo Congress of 1993, which specified that from 1 January 1996, the
description or diagnosis must be in either English or Latin. A proposal was
made to the Nomenclature Section in Melbourne to extend this requirement
for names of fossils to names of fungi, but the Section decided to apply this
rule to all organisms under the jurisdiction of theICN and also decided that,
like the rules on electronic publication, this more permissive provision would
become effective on 1 January 2012. The general provisions are inArt. 39
(names in all groups being covered byArt. 39.2), whereas the special provi-
sions for names of fossils are inArt. 43.1 and those of algae inArt. 44.1.

Since 2004, the online database MycoBank (http://www.mycobank.org/)
has become increasingly used by mycologists to register new fungal names
and associated data, such as descriptions and illustrations. Upon registra-
tion, MycoBank issues a unique number, which can be cited in the publica-
tion where the name appears. This number is also used by the nomenclatural

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xi –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

databaseIndex Fungorum (http://www.indexfungorum.org/) and serves as
a Life Science Identifier (LSID). Many journals, includingTaxon, already
require inclusion of this identifier for acceptance of papers with nomen-
clatural novelties involving fungi. The Congress in Melbourne decided
to make mandatory for valid publication of a new fungal name published
on or after 1 January 2013 “the citation in the protologue of the identifier
issued by a recognized repository for the name” (seeArt. 42). This rule
applies to names of new taxa, new combinations, names at new ranks, and
replacement names.

Since the Brussels Congress in 1910, there has been provision for a separate
name (or names) for the asexual (anamorph) state (or states) of fungi with a
pleomorphic life cycle from that applicable to the sexual (teleomorph) state
and to the whole fungus. TheBrussels Rules (Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl.
Bot., ed. 2. 1912) specified that names given to states other than the sexual
one (the “perfect state”) “have only a temporary value”, apparently antici-
pating a time when they would no longer be needed. At the Melbourne
Congress, it was decided that this time had come – but not through disuse
as may have been envisaged in Brussels. Throughout the various changes
since 1912 to the rules on names of fungi with a pleomorphic life cycle,
one element has remained constant: the correct name for the taxon in all
its morphs (the holomorph) was the earliest applicable to the sexual state
(the teleomorph). In Melbourne, this restriction was overturned and it was
decided that all legitimate fungal names were to be treated equally for the
purposes of establishing priority, regardless of the life history stage of the
type. As a consequence the Melbourne Congress also approved additional
special provisions for the conservation and rejection of fungal names to
mitigate the nomenclatural disruption that would otherwise arise.

Article 59, which has dealt with names of pleomorphic fungi in all recent
editions of theCode, is now limited to one paragraph establishing that names
published prior to 1 January 2013 as applicable to one morph but includ-
ing in the protologue a name (or names) applicable to a different morph are
not made illegitimate on that account. There are also Notes clarifying the
nomenclatural effect of all fungal names competing equally for priority. The
main provisions adopted in Melbourne to minimize consequent nomenclatu-
ral disruption are to be found inArt. 14.13, by which lists of names may, after
review by the appropriate committees, be conserveden bloc and included
in Appendices to theCode. In addition, a newArt. 56.3 provides for similar
lists of names to be rejected, while a newArt. 57.2 specifies that, where both
kinds of names were widely used for a taxon, an anamorph-typified name

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xii –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

that has priority is not to displace the teleomorph name(s) unless and until a
formal conservation or rejection proposal has been submitted and rejected.

Since theStockholm Code (Lanjouw & al. in Regnum Veg. 3. 1952) there
have been special rules for names of fossils reflecting their frequent frag-
mentary occurrence. The details have changed over time, but, most recently,
theCode has adopted the concept of “morphotaxa” that, for nomenclatur-
al purposes, comprised only the one part, life-history stage, or preser-
vational state represented by the corresponding nomenclatural type. The
Nomenclature Section adopted a set of proposals (for details see Cleal &
Thomas in Taxon 59: 261–268; 312–313. 2010) by which the concept of mor-
photaxa is abandoned, but with this the distinction is clarified between fos-
sils, the physical objects that exist and to which the rules of nomenclature
apply, and the organisms from which the fossils were derived but that no
longer exist except as hypothetical reconstructions. As it is only the former
that can generally be named, it was agreed that a morphotaxon concept was
unnecessary, and in those cases in which two or more fossils can be shown
to belong to the same organism, allowing their names to compete for prior-
ity in the usual way would not be destabilizing.Article 1.2 now defines what
is meant by a fossil-taxon (rather than a morphotaxon) andArt. 11.1 estab-
lishes that the use of separate names is allowed for fossil-taxa that represent
different parts, life-history stages, or preservational states of what may have
been a single organismal taxon or even a single individual.

Other important changes to the rules were adopted in Melbourne, but these
were of a more technical nature than the five outlined above all of which
have broader implications for users of names of organisms covered by the
ICN. Some of these more technical changes are described below.

Reference has been made to the restructuring of the section of theCode
dealing with the requirements for valid publication of names. One of the
major difficulties with this section in all recent editions of theCode was that
the provisions for valid publication of names of new taxa and those for valid
publication of renamings of existing taxa, i.e. new combinations, names
at new ranks, and replacement names, were not clearly distinguished. In
addition the placement of some matters such as misplaced ranks as rather
illogical, and others, such as the provision for an illustration with analy-
sis were to some degree duplicated. The new structure of this portion of
theCode, now established as a separate chapter (V: “Valid Publication of
Names”) is much more logical, and, although it may take some of us a little
time to get used to different numberings for frequently cited clauses (e.g.

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xiii –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

Art. 38.1(a) instead of32.1(d) for the requirement for a validating descrip-
tion or diagnosis), we are convinced that this chapter will now be much
easier to understand and to apply.

The chapter is divided into four sections. Section 1, General Provisions
(Art. 32–37), contains the rules applicable to all names, such as the require-
ment for effective publication, the form of the name, the determination of
date, the requirement for acceptance by the publishing author and for clear
indication of rank, and the provision for names not being validly published
by suppression of the work in which they appear. Section 2, Names of new
taxa (Art. 38–40), covers their particular requirements such as the need for
a description or diagnosis, the language of that description or diagnosis,
and the requirement for type designation. Section 3, New combinations,
names at new ranks, replacement names (Art. 41), encompasses all the pro-
visions relating to such names, including permissible ranks of a basionym
or replaced synonym, and the requirements, varying over time, for refer-
ence to that basionym or replaced synonym. Section 4, Names in particular
groups (Art. 42–45), incorporates those provisions that are only applicable
to names of fungi (Art. 42), fossils (Art. 43), algae (Art. 44), and taxa origi-
nally assigned to groups not covered by thisCode (Art. 45).

Despite the rather dramatic changes accepted in Melbourne that are
described above, taken overall, the Melbourne Congress like most of its
predecessors, was rather conservative in that less than a quarter (24%) of the
published proposals were accepted. Nevertheless, a small number of signifi-
cant changes incorporating many useful clarifications and improvements to
theCode, 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 60: 1507–1520. 2011).

Although not involving any change in the rules themselves, the Congress in
Melbourne accepted a proposal for clear definition of the terms, “name of
a new taxon”, “new combination”, and “replacement name” (Art. 6.9–6.11).
This not only allows these concepts to be referred to more clearly through-
out theCode and avoids cumbersome phrases such as “generic name with a
basionym”, but also facilitates the separation of the different rules for valid
publication of names of new taxa from those for new combinations, names
at new ranks, and replacement names referred to above. As a by-product,
two paragraphs ofArt. 7 were transposed, that dealing with typification of
a new combination or a name at new rank (nowArt. 7.3) has been, more
logically, placed ahead of that of a replacement name (nowArt. 7.4).

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xiv –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

The Melbourne Section accepted the term “replacement name” as the pre-
ferred term in theCode over “nomen novum” and “avowed substitute”,
although use of the term nomen novum (or its abbreviation nom. nov.) is
still recommended when publishing a replacement name (Rec. 32A.1).

The rules on typification of sanctioned names and of names in groups
with a starting date later than 1753 are necessarily different from those for
other names, but in changes to theCode over the years, such as the intro-
duction of the definition of “original material”, this has not always been
taken fully into account. The Congress in Melbourne clarified typification
of both these groups of name.Article 7.8 now addresses specifically the
typification of names in groups with a later starting date. The typification
of sanctioned names, resolved as a result of anad hoc committee meeting
during the Nomenclature Section in Melbourne, requires slightly different
rules for names of species and infraspecific taxa from those for names of
genera and subdivisions of genera and are to be found inArt. 9.10 andArt.
10.2(b) (with10.5), respectively. The circumstances under which a sanc-
tioned name excludes the original type of the name are set out inArt. 48.3.

The terms “isolectotype”, “isoneotype”, and “isoepitype” do not apply to
any element that has particular significance under the rules, and so have not
hitherto appeared in theCode. Their meaning is self-evident and there are
situations (including the Appendices to theCode) in which their adoption
is useful. Moreover their absence from theCode has apparently prompted
some to question the appropriateness of their use. As a result of a proposal
accepted in Melbourne, their use is now included inRec. 9C.

It has long been established that a name that was illegitimate when pub-
lished remains illegitimate unless it is conserved. There are, however, a sig-
nificant number of family names in current use that, when published, were
formed from illegitimate generic names that have since been conserved.
Although the rules are retroactive, the effect of the rules is not, so that,
under previous editions of theCode, the subsequent conservation of the
generic name did not make legitimate the family name formed from it; this
was only possible by conservation of the family name itself. Amendments
accepted in Melbourne and included inArt. 18.3 and19.6 establish that the
conservation of the generic name now also makes legitimate the name of a
family and the names of subdivisions of a family formed from it.

Three small but important changes were made to the rules on conserva-
tion of names. Because only names at the ranks of species, genus and
family may be conserved, a problem has recently been recognized in the

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xv –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

case of conservation with a conserved type of a generic name or species
name based on the name of a subdivision of a genus or of an infraspecific
taxon, respectively. As the latter could not be conserved, it would neces-
sarily retain the type determined by the other rules of theCode and not the
conserved type with the potential of defeating the purpose of conserva-
tion (although this was ignored in the entries in the Appendices of previ-
ous editions of theCode). For example,Stipa viridula var.robusta Vasey
retained its type (applicable toS. lobata Swallen), even althoughS. robusta
Scribn. was conserved at the St Louis Congress with a different conserved
type, and as a resultAchnatherum robustum (Vasey) Barkworth, a comb-
ination in current use, retained the type of the varietal name and not the
intended conserved type. This was resolved in Melbourne by the addition
toArt. 14.1 of the sentence: “The name of a subdivision of a genus or of an
infraspecific taxon may be conserved with a conserved type and listed in
App. III andIV, respectively, when it is the basionym of a name of a genus
or species that could not continue to be used in its current sense without
conservation.” The Congress also made this provision apply retroactively
for all such existing conserved names, so that, for example,S. viridula var.
robusta is now conserved with the type that was conserved forS. robusta.

It has commonly been assumed that, just as the type of a conserved name
isde facto conserved (by the application ofArt. 14.8) regardless of whether
the name is explicitly conserved with a conserved type, so also the spelling
of a conserved name could not be altered. This has now been made explicit,
also inArt. 14.8.

Whereas a name may be conserved to preserve its spelling and gender as well
as its application, there has never been any provision to maintain its place
and date of publication. AsArt. 14 Note 1 put it, theCode did “not provide
for conservation of a name against itself, i.e. against an isonym”. Although
this has been maintained in general, a special exception has now been pro-
vided for the family names of bryophytes and spermatophytes included in
App. IIB.Article 14.15 provides that the places of publication cited for those
names are treated as correct in all circumstances and consequently are not to
be changed (except by a new conservation proposal), even when otherwise
such a name would not be validly published or when it is a later isonym.

Although the name of any subdivision of a family that includes the type
of the family name must be based on the same generic name as that of
the family (Art. 19.4), there are often circumstances in which the earliest
name for a subdivision of a family is not the most familiar one, particularly

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xvi –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

when long-established families are united. This prompted the acceptance
in Melbourne of the provision that appears inArt. 19.5 by which a name
of any subdivision of a family formed from the same generic name as a
conserved family name listed in App. IIB has precedence over names not
so formed (unlessArt. 19.4 applies).

The rules on attribution of a name to an author or authors rely heavily on
the concept of ascription (Art. 46.3) (“the direct association of the name
of a person or persons with a new name or description or diagnosis of a
taxon”). However, although the authorship of a description or diagnosis is
commonly unambiguous (being, for example, the author of the publication)
it is uncommon for the author’s name to be directly associated with any sin-
gle description or diagnosis. Accordingly it was agreed in Melbourne that
Art. 46.2 be amended to add the words “or unequivocally associated with”.

Article 48 has long established that adopting an existing name but defi-
nitely excluding its “original” type, establishes a later homonym, but in
practice this has had limited application because very few early names, at
least of species and infraspecific taxa, have an original type. The Congress
decided to make the rule more practical, by deleting “original” and defin-
ing exclusion of the type in a way analogous to that adopted for inclusion of
a type inArt. 52 for superfluous names (seeArt. 48.2 of thisCode).

Among the more narrowly focussed changes incorporated in theMelbourne
Code are the following: It is made clear that theMicrosporidia, although
phylogenetically related to the fungi, continue to fall under the provisions of
theICZN. Names above the rank of family, like family names, are treated as
derived from the name of an included genus (and not from a family name).
The terminations of automatically typified names above the rank of family
are now all incorporated within Articles (Art. 16.3 and17.1), whereas previ-
ously most were dealt with indirectly through a Recommendation. A provi-
sion has been included inArt. 56 to make it clearer that once the rejection
of a name under that Article has been approved by the General Committee,
rejection of the name is authorized in the same manner as is ruled for con-
served names inArt. 14.16; in previous editions, this was only noted inci-
dentally inArt. 14. It is also made clear (Art. 9.5) that reference to an entire
gathering, or a part thereof, is considered citation of the included specimens.

The Glossary, a new feature in theVienna Code, has retained its basic struc-
ture but has been revised and updated. New entries in the Glossary include:
“author citation”, “binding decision”, “element”, “isoepitype”, “isolec-
totype”, “isoneotype”, “name of a new taxon”, “organism”, “suppressed

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xvii –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

works”, and “type designation”, while some existing entries have been sub-
stantially revised, e.g. “basionym”, and “confusingly similar names”; for
others, such as “name at new rank (status novus)” and “replacement name
(avowed substitute)”, the primary entry has been changed to reflect the pre-
ferred term in theCode. Five entries have been deleted (“exsiccata”, “form
taxon”, “holomorph”, “morphotaxon”, and “plant”), reflecting the fact that
these terms are no longer used in theCode (or not in any special way). This
reflects the role of the Glossary which is strictly to explain terms used in the
Code, and where possible to do so using the precise wording associated with
these terms in theCode. The Glossary does not seek to cover all terms use-
ful in the nomenclature of organisms falling under theCode; for that users
can refer to a work such as Hawksworth,Terms used in Bionomenclature
(2010; see http://bionomenclature-glossary.gbif.org/).

In recent editions of theCode the text has used three different sizes of type,
the Recommendations and Notes being set in smaller type than the Articles,
and the Examples and footnotes in smaller type than the Recommendations
and Notes. These type sizes, which have been maintained in this edition,
reflect the distinction between mandatory rules (Articles), complementary
information or advice (Notes and Recommendations), and explanatory mate-
rial (Examples and footnotes). TheMelbourne Code has, however, attempted
to make this distinction clearer by including the numbers of each paragraph
of the Articles (and of those of the Preamble and Principles) in white within
a black background, but not doing so for the paragraph numbers of the
Recommendations. Notes, which explain something that may not at first be
readily apparent but is covered explicitly or implicitly elsewhere in theCode,
are appropriately identified with an “i” (for “information”) highlighted in
the same way as the Article numbers. A Note has binding effect but, unlike
an Article, does not introduce any new provision or concept. Examples are
distinguished, in addition to the smaller font size, by being indented.

Most Examples in theCode have been provided by successive Editorial
Committees, some on the basis of suggestions made at a Nomenclature
Section, but the majority emanating from the work of the Editorial
Committees themselves. A number of Examples, however, are not of this
type. These are prefixed by an asterisk (*) in theCode and are termed
“voted Examples”. They are Examples that were formally accepted by a
Nomenclature Section of a Congress and contain material that is not fully,
or not explicitly, covered in the rules. A voted Example is therefore compa-
rable to a rule, as contrasted with other Examples provided by the Editorial
Committee solely for illustrative purposes. In theMelbourne Code, the

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xviii –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

footnote (toArt. 7 Ex. 13) explaining the significance of the asterisk and
the Glossary entry on “voted Example” have been elaborated to make the
function of a voted Example clearer.

As in all recent editions, scientific names under the jurisdiction of theCode,
irrespective of rank, are consistently printed initalic type. TheCode 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 theCode, which has been well received in
general and is followed in a number of botanical and mycological journals.
To set off scientific names even better, the abandonment in theCode of ital-
ics for technical terms and other words in Latin, traditional but inconsistent
in early editions, has been maintained.

Like its predecessors, this Editorial Committee has tried hard to achieve uni-
formity in bibliographic style and formal presentation. The titles of books in
bibliographic citations are abbreviated in conformity withTaxonomic litera-
ture, ed. 2, by Stafleu & Cowan (inRegnum Veg. 94,98,105,110,112,115,
116. 1976–1988; with Supplements 1–6 by Stafleu & Mennega inRegnum
Veg. 125,130,132,134,135,137. 1992–2000, and 7–8 by Dorr & Nicolson
inRegnum Veg. 149,150. 2008–2009), or by analogy, but with capital initial
letters. For journal titles, the abbreviations followBPH-2 by Bridson & al.
(2004). In the editing of this edition, a more thorough review to ensure con-
sistent usage in language and terminology has been undertaken. For exam-
ple, whereas “specific rank” and “specific epithet” are used, the diverse use
of “species name” and “specific name” has been standardised in favour of
the former. Most of this work was accomplished by one of us (NJT), but we
have been aided substantially by one member of the Editorial Committee
(Werner Greuter) having occasion to review the wording of theCode in
great detail and in so doing identified a number of other inconsistencies and
possible ambiguities that have consequently been rectified.

Author citations of scientific names appearing in theCode are standardized
in conformity withAuthors of Plant Names, by Brummitt & Powell (1992),
as mentioned inRec. 46A Note 1; these are also adopted and updated by the
International Plant Names Index, and may be accessed athttp://www.ipni
.org/ipni/authorsearchpage.do. One may note that theCode has no tradition
of recording the ascription of names to pre-1753 authors by the validating
author, although such “pre-ex” author citations are permitted (seeArt. 46
Ex. 35).

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xix –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

TheMelbourne Code was prepared according to the procedures outlined in
Division III, which have been operating with hardly any change since the
Paris Congress of 1954. Altogether, 338 numbered proposals to amend the
Code were published inTaxon between February 2008 and December 2010.
Their synopsis, with comments by the Rapporteurs, appeared inTaxon (60:
243–286) in February 2011 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 inDivision III of
theCode. Tabulation of the mail vote was handled at the Central Office of
the International Association for Plant Taxonomy in Vienna by the then
Managing Secretary of IAPT, Alessandra Ricciuti Lamonea, and her assis-
tants. The results were made available to the members of the Nomenclature
Section at the beginning of its meetings; they were also tabulated in the
October 2011 issue ofTaxon (60: 1507–1520), along with the actions taken
by Congress.

The Nomenclature Section met in the Copland Theatre, Economics
and Commerce Building, University of Melbourne (Parkville campus),
Melbourne, Australia, from Monday, 18 July until Friday, 22 July. There
were 204 registered members in attendance, carrying 396 institutional
votes in addition to their personal votes, making a total of 600 possible
votes. Although as in Vienna in 2005 this was a large attendance compared
with many previous Congresses, it was substantially smaller than that at
St. Louis in 1999, which had a record attendance (with 297 members car-
rying 494 institutional votes, making a total of 791 possible votes). The
Section officers, previously appointed in conformity withDivision III of
theCode, were S. Knapp (President), B. J. Lepschi (Recorder), J. McNeill
(Rapporteur-général), and N. J. Turland (Vice-Rapporteur). The Recorder
was assisted by A. M. Monro. Each Nomenclature Section is entitled to
define its own procedural rules within the limits set by theCode. As on
previous occasions, at least a 60% assenting majority was required for any
proposed change to theCode to be adopted. Proposals that received 75%
or more “no” votes in the mail vote were ruled as rejected unless raised
anew from the floor.

The Nomenclature Section also appointed the Editorial Committee for the
Melbourne Code. As is traditional, only persons present at the Section
meetings were invited to serve on that Committee, which as theCode
requires is chaired by the Rapporteur-général and as is logical includes
the Vice-Rapporteur as its secretary. The Nominating Committee of the
Nomenclature Section in Melbourne decided to increase the size of the

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xx –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

Editorial Committee from the usual 12 to 14 to provide for better interna-
tional representation. The Committee convened on 5 December 2011 at the
Natural History Museum, London, England, for a full week’s hard work.
The Committee worked on the basis of a draft of the text of the main body
of theCode, prepared by the Chairman to incorporate the changes decided
by the Section, but also incorporating an initial draft re-organization of
Art. 32–45 prepared by Werner Greuter. This draft of the newCode was
distributed by e-mail shortly before the meeting; along with a prelimi-
nary version of the proceedings of the Section meetings, as transcribed by
Pacific Transcription, Queensland, and edited by Anna Monro.

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
Examples for inclusion. The terms of the Committee’s mandate, as defined
by the Section in Melbourne, included, in addition to the specific man-
date to re-organize the section on valid publication, the usual empower-
ment to alter the wording, the Examples, or the location of Articles and
Recommendations, in so far as the meaning was not affected; while retain-
ing the present numbering in so far as possible.

The full Editorial Committee concentrated on the main body of theCode,
includingAppendix I (hybrids). A new electronic draft of these portions
was completed following the Editorial Committee meeting, and provided
to all members on 20 January for checking and for any further necessary
clarification; as a result a revised draft was prepared and circulated to all
members on 6 April. The implementation of the provisions on electronic
publication on 1 January 2012 provided an opportunity to add clarifying
examples on effective (and ineffective) electronic publication. The fortui-
tous attendance of five members of the Editorial Committee, including the
Chairman and Secretary, at a meeting of the International Committee on
Bionomenclature at the Berlin Botanic Garden from 26 to 28 April spon-
sored by International Union of Biological Sciences was particularly useful
in finalizing this section of theCode. Subsequently a further, near-final,
draft was circulated to the entire Committee on 6 June for further proof-
reading, followed by a final draft on 2 July for final proofreading. Several
inconsistencies and a few errors were noted thereafter, and these were cor-
rected during the subsequent formatting.

The Index of scientific names was revised by Franz Stadler and the Subject
index by the Rapporteurs.

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xxi –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

This is the proper place for us to thank all those who have contributed to the
publication of the newCode: our fellow members of the Editorial Committee
for their forbearance, helpfulness, and congeniality; Anna Monro, for mak-
ing readily usable so promptly the raw transcription of the Nomenclature
Section proceedings; all those who volunteered advice and suggestions,
including relevant new Examples; the International Association for Plant
Taxonomy and its successive Secretaries-General, Tod Stuessy and Karol
Marhold, for maintaining IAPT’s traditional commitment to nomenclature
by funding travel and some ancillary costs for the Editorial Committee
meeting in London; and The Natural History Museum, London for facili-
tating that meeting by providing a meeting room and electronic access.

The ongoing implementation of theCode depends not only on those who
have helped to make this new edition possible but also on the scores of
members of the Permanent Nomenclature Committees that work continu-
ously between Congresses, dealing principally with proposals for conser-
vation or rejection of names, and also those who are members of Special
Committees set up by the Nomenclature Section of the Congress to review
and seek solutions to particular nomenclatural problems. The nomenclature
of algae, fungi, and plants 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 the names governed by thisCode. On their
behalf we express our sincere thanks to all who participate in this work.

TheInternational Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants is
published under the ultimate authority of the International Botanical
Congresses. Provisions for the modification of theCode are detailed in
Division III (p. 141). The next International Botanical Congress will be
held in Shenzhen, China from 23 to 29 July 2017, with a Nomenclature
Section meeting in the preceding week (18–22 July). Invitation for propos-
als to amend thisCode and instructions on procedure and format will be
published inTaxon early in 2014.

Like other international codes of nomenclature theICN has no legal sta-
tus and is dependent on the voluntary acceptance of its rules by authors,
editors, and other users of names that it governs. We trust that this
Melbourne Code will make their work just that little easier.
 
 

Edinburgh and Saint Louis, 30 September 2012

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xxii –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

   KEY TO THE RE-NUMBERING OF ARTICLES, NOTES,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 

The Nomenclature Section in Melbourne instructed the Editorial Com-
mittee to re-organize the rules on valid publication of names (Art.
32–45) in a more logical manner. As a result the Articles, Notes, and
Recommendations in what is now Chapter V have been substantially re-
arranged. This key includes all these changes and also those in other parts
of theCode. Examples are omitted as these can readily be traced via the
Indices, through the scientific names mentioned.

1.VIENNA CODE TOMELBOURNE CODE

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xxiii –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xxiv –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

2.MELBOURNE CODE TOVIENNA CODE

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xxv –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xxvi –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xxvii –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xxviii –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

                  IMPORTANT DATES IN THE CODE
 

DATES UPON WHICH PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF THE CODE

BECOME OR CEASE TO BE EFFECTIVE

ARTICLES INVOLVING DATES APPLICABLE TO THE

MAIN TAXONOMIC GROUPS

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xxix –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

ARTICLES DEFINING THE DATES OF CERTAIN WORKS

Art. 13.1(a-f) (see alsoArt. 13 Note 1)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

__________________________________________________________________ 

   International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, 2012  — Melbourne Code

– xxx –

text: © 2012, IAPT  —  web-edition: © 2014, Paul van Rijckevorsel   (all rights reserved)

__________________________________________________________________ 

[to body of the 2012,Melbourne Code ]