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