Search

Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

Conserved, protected, and rejected plant names, suppressed publications, and binding nomenclature decisions: proposals and disposals

originally by Dan H. Nicolson (revised since 2015 by John H. Wiersema)

For additional background, history, and analysis see the following publications:

 

Introduction: It is not widely known but there is a story behind almost every name listed in the Appendices of the International Code of Nomenclature (ICN), which now far exceeds in size the Code itself. Indeed there is a story behind many names not listed, i.e. that were proposed and were not approved. It behooves anyone interested in a particular name to check this database to see if it has been considered for conservation and/or rejection or the subject of a request for a binding decision. The database aims to document the steps that proposals or requests go through so that one can trace the history of every proposed or requested name. As a matter of historical interest, an index to conserved and rejected names was published by Rickett & Stafleu (Taxon 10: 178-193. 1961).

Implicitly conserved, protected, and rejected names: The database accounts for every name explicitly proposed for conservation, protection, or rejection. This is simple when dealing with family and generic names, i.e. Appendices II (Names of Families), III (Names of Genera and Subdivisions of Genera). However, difficulties begin when conserving, protecting, and/or rejecting species names. This is because one usually proposes to conserve, protect, or reject a basionym, not the combination(s) based on it. Appendices IV (Conserved, Protected, and Rejected Species and Infraspecific Names) and V (Suppressed Names) both explicitly provide that whatever pertains (conservation, protection, or rejection) to a listed basionym, may also pertain to any combination based on it, listed or not, provided that such a combination with a conserved or protected basionym is not an illegitimate later homonym, which itself must be explicitly conserved or protected. These implicitly conserved, protected, or rejected combinations are confusing but perhaps two examples will clarify:

  1. Cactus cruciformis Vell. 1829 is explicitly conserved (Appendix IV) against explicitly rejected (1) Cereus squamulosus Salm-Dyck ex DC. 1828, (2) Cereus tenuispinus Haw. 1827, (3) Cereus myosurus Salm-Dyck ex DC. 1828, and (4) Cereus tenuis DC. 1828. This means that combinations based on conserved Cactus cruciformis Vell., such as Lepismium cruciforme (Vell.) Miq. 1838, are implicitly conserved over any combination based on any of the explicitly rejected names. The opposite also pertains. Such combinations would not, however, be conserved over any earlier homonyms.
  2. Magnolia tomentosa Thunb. 1794 (Thymelaeaceae, not Magnoliaceae) is explicitly rejected (Appendix V). This means that a combination based on it, Edgeworthia tomentosa (Thunb.) Nakai 1919, is implicitly rejected against any name it might threaten, such as Edgeworthia papyrifera Siebold & Zucc. 1846 or E. chrysantha Lindl. 1846.

All implicitly conserved names cross-referenced in the Code's Appendix IV (e.g. Lepismium cruciforme (Vell.) Miq.) and the implicitly rejected names cross-referenced in Appendix V (e.g. Edgeworthia tomentosa (Thunb.) Nakai) have been added to the database. This means that if you are interested in whether or not there is a conservation or rejection proposal concerning Edgeworthia, you should use the generic name to query the scientific name field. You will find Edgeworthia tomentosa listed as a rejected name, although the original proposal was to explicitly reject only its basionym, Magnolia tomentosa.

Headings: There are 19 often abbreviated headings in a proposals/requests report, each often using abbreviations in the content:

  1. Proposal/Request No. = Proposal/request number. Although proposals began in 1892, the assignment of a continuing series of numbers did not begin until 1955, and those for requests, which began in 2007, not until 2013. Thus many proposals/requests appear without numbers.
  2. Cons. = Name(s) proposed for conservation under Art. 14.
  3. Protect. = Fungal name(s) proposed for protection under Art. F.2.
  4. Rej. = Name(s) proposed for rejection, whether against a conserved (Art. 14) or protected (Art. F.2) name or for outright rejection (nom. utique rej., Art. 56).
  5. Suppr. = Publication proposed for suppression under Art. 34.
  6. Descr. = Request for a binding decision on descriptive statement under Art. 38.4.
  7. Parahom. = Request for a binding decision on confusingly similar names (parahomonymy, Art. 53.4).
  8. Group = Proposals/requests can be sorted into one of 6 mostly taxonomic groups: Spermatophytes (Spermatoph.), Pteridophytes (Pteridoph.), Bryophytes (Bryoph.), Fungi (Fungi), Algae (Algae), and Fossils (Foss.).
  9. Subgroup = In Appendix III, proposals involving Spermatophytes (2) and Bryophytes (3) are sorted into the number of subgroups indicated.
  10. Action = The nomenclatural action sought or proposed. The codes used mostly involve two parts:
    1. the initial capital letter: A=amend an existing conservation entry, C=conserve a name, D=seeks a binding decision on a descriptive statement, O=suppress a work, H=seeks a binding decision on parahomonymy, P=protect a name, R=reject a name outright
    2. in lower case, the rank of the name involved, if applicable: f=family, g=genus, se=section, sf=subfamily, sg=subgenus, sp=species, ssp=subspecies, st=supertribe, t=tribe, v=variety.
  11. Author = The author(s) of the proposal/request.
  12. Place = Where the proposal/request was published.
  13. Synopsis = Synopsis of Proposals to a particular Congress where this proposal was cited.
  14. Special. Comm. = Place where the Permanent Nomenclature Committee (Div. III, Prov. 7) of the Group (see #8 above, but since 2005 Pteridophyte and Spermatophyte Proposals are now evaluated by the specialist Committee for Vascular Plants) made its recommendation on the proposal/request, expressed as: a) + = recommended for the proposal (more than 50% or, since 1996, more than 60% in favor), or decided in favor of valid publication or confusability (more than 50% in favor), b) - = recommended against the proposal (more than 50% opposed or not voting or, since 1996, more than 60% opposed), or decided against valid publication or confusability (more than 50% opposed), c) no recommendation or decision, since 1996 60% or more neither opposed nor in favor, or d) w = the proposal/request was withdrawn. The absence of a recommendation can be an invitation to the General Committee to see if they can vote decisively.
  15. Gen. Comm. = Citation where the General Committee made its recommendation on the proposal/request. The mathematical signs used (+ and -) are explained above (under 14). Under the current Code, i.e., Art. 14.15, 34.2, 56.3 and F.2.1, when a proposal for conservation (Art. 14), protection (Art. F.2), or rejection (Art. 56) of a name, or for suppression of a publication (Art. 34), has been approved by the General Committee after study by the specialist Committee for the taxonomic group concerned, retention (or rejection) of that name or suppression of that publication is authorized subject (except in cases involving protection) to the decision of a later International Botanical Congress.
  16. Congr. Proc. = Citation in the Proceedings of the Congress that authorized inserting the name in the Code Appendices. Authorization is a two-step process: (1) a statement that the actions of the General Committee are ratified by the Nomenclature Section, and (2) the actions of the Nomenclature Section are ratified by the Congress itself. The citation should be of the latter but the former may have been cited sometimes.
  17. Comm. & Rev. = Comments and revisions. Comments, pro or con, were sometimes made on a proposal. Revisions are published emendations to already listed names, e.g. early generic conservations lacked citation of generic types, added in revisions published in Taxon. The basis for other unpublished editorial revisions to entries are also provided here.
  18. Code = The Codes where the action involving the name(s) or publication have appeared. Sometimes names or publications that were only approved by the appropriate specialist Committee were put in a Code with an asterisk (*): "Conservation/rejection of a name or suppression of a publication still subject to approval by the General Committee and/or the next International Botanical Congress." The * entry for that Code was cited and, if all went well, followed with the citation of the first Code where it appeared without an asterisk or, as sometimes happened, with a note that it had been dropped, i.e. disappeared.
  19. Code Entries = If the proposal/request was approved or decided by an International Botanical Congress, the entries from the Shenzhen Code Appendices of all names or publications associated with the proposal/request are provided. Subsequent to the Shenzhen Congress, suppression of an additional publication or conservation, protection, or rejection of an additional name is authorized upon approval of a proposal by the General Committee after study by the specialist committees for the taxonomic groups concerned (Art. 14.15, 34.2,and 56.3), and such names are listed for App. I–V with an asterisk (*) subject to the decision of the next International Botanical Congress.

last revised 16 December 2019

International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants: Appendices I-VII

 

PREFACE

 

The rules that govern the scientific naming of algae, fungi, and land plants are revised at Nomenclature Section meetings at successive International Botanical Congresses. The decisions on rules and recommendations made by the XIX Congress held in Shenzhen, China in July 2017 were embodied in the main volume of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code), published in 2018 as Regnum Vegetabile volume 159.

Among the decisions made at the XVIII International Botanical Congress in 2011 in Melbourne, Australia was that the Appendices to the Code (other than App. I on the nomenclature of hybrids) could be published in electronic form only and therefore need no longer be published together with the main text. Consequently, App. II–VIII of the Melbourne Code were published in 2015, as Regnum Vegetabile 157, both as a printed volume and electronically, some three years after publication of the main text of the Melbourne Code in 2012 (Regnum Vegetabile 154). A change in the way in which these Appendices were compiled was made possible by the development of a database for all entries in the Appendices (see Taxon 64: 1021–1027. 2015). The database, accessed through this website, incorporated the database of names proposed for conservation and rejection developed by Dan H. Nicolson (see Taxon 49: 549–554. 2000), but was extensively developed to cover all the entries in the Code Appendices and to allow various queries to be made on these entries and the underlying nomenclature proposals.

Beginning with the Shenzhen Code the former App. I, on the names of hybrids, is no longer an Appendix but part of the main body of the Code following a proposal accepted in Shenzhen. It now forms Chapter H (the “H” standing for hybrids) of the Shenzhen Code, immediately following Chapter F and the preceding Division III. When the former App. I (names of hybrids) became Chapter H, the remaining Appendices required re-numbering. The Editorial Committee decided that the former App. VI (suppressed works), could logically become the new App. I, because its impact can affect names at all ranks. Appendices II–V therefore remain unchanged, and the former App. VII and VIII (binding decisions), which were relatively new to the Code, become App. VI and VII respectively.

The newly numbered Appendix I lists 43 works that are suppressed under Art. 34 such that new ames appearing in the listed publications in any of the ranks specified in square brackets at the end of each entry are not accepted as validly published and, by a new provision enacted in Shenzhen, no nomenclatural act (Art. 34.1 footnote) within the work associated with any names at these ranks is effective. After the Shenzhen Congress, suppression of any additional publication is authorized upon approval of a proposal by the General Committee after study by the specialist committees for the taxonomic groups concerned (Art. 34.2), and such publications will be listed in App. I with an asterisk (*) subject to the decision of the next International Botanical Congress.

In all recent Codes since the 2006 Vienna Code, Appendices II–IV cover names conserved under Art. 14 at the ranks of family, genus, and species, respectively. Since the Melbourne Congress 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 and IV, 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 (Art. 14.1). For the Shenzhen Code this provision was extended to also cover replaced synonyms in addition to basionyms. The titles of App. III and IV now reflect the additional conserved names of subdivisions of genera and infraspecific taxa. The Melbourne Congress also made this provision apply retroactively for all such existing conserved names, so that each of the names listed in App. III and IV of the Vienna Code as being the basionym of a conserved name with a conserved type was to be treated as conserved on the same date and with the same type as the conserved name under which it was cited. Because the aim of this provision was to maintain the current usage of the names of genera and species, not to conserve names at other ranks independently of this, entries for conserved names of subdivisions of genera or infraspecific taxa are included under the corresponding genus or species name and distinguished by use of boldface italics. The entries for Alocasia in App. III and for Stipa robusta and Cenomyce stellaris in App. IV show how this is done. There are also three conserved species names with a conserved type that have a species name as basionym and are conserved because of earlier homonyms. These basionyms are also conserved under the provisions accepted in Melbourne and, although not all are in current use, the basionyms are also listed in App. IV with cross reference to the main entry for the conserved name.

At the Berlin Congress in 1987, it was agreed to extend conservation of species names (previously only for those applicable to “species of major economic importance”) to include those whose identity was in dispute but that indicated the type of a conserved generic name (Art. 14.3 of the Berlin Code – Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 118. 1988). Because the emphasis was on the application of the generic name, in the Berlin Code and in the Tokyo Code (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 131. 1994) these species names did not have an entry in what is now App. IV, and starting with the Saint Louis Code (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 138. 2000) had merely a cross-reference to the generic name in App. III for which they provided the type – an example is in the entries for Amaryllis and A. belladonna on pages 252 and 440 of the Vienna Code. In the Melbourne Code, the 40 species names conserved by this method were entered in App. IV in the same way as other conserved species names, while in App. III, the type was indicated as also “nom. cons.” with a note to see also App. IV.

A few additional changes to the conservation provisions of Art. 14 were made in Shenzhen. Although there are none currently listed in App. III, the application of conserved and rejected names of nothogenera is determined by a statement of parentage, not by the type (Art. 14.3), which such names do not have according to Art. H.9 Note 1. Amendments to Art. 14.15 now permit determination of the date of conservation, which can be important, especially in evaluating whether or not a name was nomenclaturally superfluous when published. For names conserved from 1954 onward, conservation takes effect upon effective publication of the General Committee’s approval of the relevant conservation proposal, and this can be looked up in the Proposals/Requests report at this website. This also applies to names protected under Art. F.2, which permits names of fungi, submitted as lists, to be protected and also included in App. II–IV. Protected names are treated as conserved against competing unlisted synonyms and homonyms. Subsequent to the Shenzhen Congress, conservation or protection of an additional name is authorized upon approval of a proposal by the General Committee after study by the specialist committee for the taxonomic group concerned (Art. 14.15), and such names will be listed in App. II–IV with an asterisk (*) subject to the decision of the next International Botanical Congress.

Names rejected under Art. 56 are listed in Appendix V (suppressed names). Art. 56.3 was augmented at the Shenzhen Congress to rule that the rejection of a name under either Art. 56 or F.7 takes effect on the date of effective publication of the General Committee’s approval of the relevant rejection proposal, and this can be looked up in the Proposals/Requests report at this website. Subsequent to the Shenzhen Congress, rejection of an additional name is authorized upon approval of a proposal by the General Committee after study by the specialist committee for the taxonomic group concerned (Art. 56.3), and such names will be listed in App. II–IV with an asterisk (*) subject to the decision of the next International Botanical Congress. No lists of rejected names of fungi (Art. F.7) have yet been approved.

Appendices VI and VII reflect the decision of the Melbourne Congress to include in Appendices the binding decisions under Art. 38.4 of the Code 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. The lay-outs of these Appendices, VI (“Binding decisions on descriptive statements”) and VII (“Binding decisions on confusability of names”), are both very simple. In App. VI the potential names are arranged alphabetically, regardless of rank, with the supposed place of publication followed by the statement “Decision: not validly published” or “Decision: validly published”. The entries that have been determined not to be validly published names are in double quotation marks and the publication reference is in parentheses. In App. VII each entry of a pair of names upon which a binding decision has been made is prefixed with either “(H)”, to be treated as homonyms, or “(NH)”, not as homonyms. The entries are arranged alphabetically, and chronologically within the pairs, regardless of rank.

It should be noted that in addition to the 109 binding decisions listed in App. VII, there are 6 sets of generic names and 14 sets of epithets ruled by voted Examples in the Code (Art. 53 *Ex. 8–11) as sufficiently alike to be confused and hence to be treated as homonyms, and 9 sets of generic names and 3 sets of epithets similarly ruled (Art. 53 *Ex. 12) as not likely to be confused. An Example in the Code (Art. 53 Ex. 13) also notes 4 sets of generic names that established practice has treated as homonyms, a practice to be maintained under Art. 53.3 final sentence.

Beginning with the Vienna Rules (Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot. 1906) the titles of those Appendices listing conserved and rejected names and titles of suppressed works were in Latin. Whereas in the various editions of the Rules (Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot. 1906; ed. 2. 1912; ed. 3. 1935), the explanatory notes in that Appendix were also in Latin, from the Stockholm Code (Lanjouw & al. in Regnum Veg. 3. 1952) until the Vienna Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006), the introductory material and notes were in English, and translations of the more recent editions of the Code into other languages have generally included translations of this material, even when not including the main text of the Appendices (e.g. Bicudo & Prado, Código Intern. Nom. Bot. 2003; Егорова и др., Междунар. Кодекс Бот. Ном. [Egorova & al., Mezhdinar. Kodeks Bot. Nom.] 2009). For the Melbourne Code the Editorial Committee concluded, bearing in mind the need for titles for the then-new Appendices VII and VIII, that it would be more satisfactory to have both the titles and the explanatory text in English, and this practice has been maintained for the Shenzhen Code. In the latter Code, for the sake of consistency with the algae and fungi we have now avoided the use of formal Latin names for the taxonomic groupings above the rank of order in App. IIB, III, IV and V, replacing Bryophyta with bryophytes, Pteridophyta with pteridophytes, and Spermatophyta with spermatophytes, and in App. III replacing the subgroups Hepaticae, Musci, Gymnospermae, and Angiospermae with hepatics, mosses, gymnosperms, and angiosperms, respectively.

Within the text of the Appendices, however, Latin continues to be used, e.g. for words and phrases such as “Typus”, “vide”, “non designatus”, “orth. cons.” etc. The explanatory notes preceding the text of each Appendix had increased in detail with successive editions of the Code, so some formerly redundant content is now provided in a single introductory “Explanation of symbols and Latin terms used in Appendices I–VII”. The introductory material to each individual Appendix is now confined to an explanation of its content.

Beginning with the Tokyo Code, cross-references from combinations in current use to their conserved or rejected basionyms were added to the then App. IIIB and IV (now App. IV and V). The number of cross-referenced combinations in the two Appendices has steadily grown in subsequent Codes, but a renewed investigation of past nomenclature proposals uncovered many additional combinations and replacement names in use that were added to the Melbourne Code Appendices. The form in which these cross-references are presented was made more explicit to indicate that names are homotypic synonyms. For example in App. IV the “Vitex payos (Lour.) Merr., vide Allasia payos.” of the Vienna Code became “Vitex payos Lour.) Merr. ≡ Allasia payos (q. v.)” in App. IV of the Melbourne Code. The citation of type specimens in the Appendices, primarily in App. IV and V, has usually included the herbarium accession number where such existed. With the increasing use of barcoding by herbaria, particularly for type specimens, barcodes have now been included for type specimens where these exist and have been traced.

Up to and including the Tokyo Code, entries of conserved names of Spermatophyta were numbered according to the index (“Register”) in Dalla Torre & Harms (Gen. Siphon.: 638–921. 1907–1908) and arranged accordingly under the families recognized in that work. In the Saint Louis Code and the Vienna Code, an alphabetical arrangement was adopted and the previous family assignments were included, in abbreviated form, in parentheses, as had been done in previous editions for rejected homonyms and for names of Spermatophyta in what are now App. IV and V. The Dalla Torre & Harms family assignments were based on those of Engler’s Syllabus (ed. 2. 1898), and the parenthetical entries in most editions of the Code had essentially followed that system, which is in many cases different from the current assignments of, for example, the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG; cf. http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/). For the Appendices to the Melbourne Code, the Editorial Committee decided to give first the “traditional” family assignment and second, following a slash ( / ), that of APG III (in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 161: 105–121. 2009), and this practice has been extended to that of APG IV (in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 181: 1–20. 2016) for the Appendices to the Shenzhen Code; where the assignments are the same the entry repeats the abbreviation of the family name.

Given this current phylogenetic consensus, the previous division in App. III of generic names of Spermatophyta between Monocotyledones and Dicotyledones in the Vienna Code was no longer tenable and was discontinued for the Melbourne Code. For similar reasons, the segregation of algal names in App. III into the classes Bacillariophyceae, Bodonophyceae, Chlorophyceae, Chrysophyceae, Cyanophyceae, Dinophyceae, Euglenophyceae, Phaeophyceae, Rhodophyceae, Trichomonadophyceae, and Xanthophyceae has also now been abandoned for the Shenzhen Code. Algal names in other Appendices are no longer associated with these classes as well.

At the San Juan International Mycological Congress in 2018, Rec. F.3A.1 was amended and simplified so that, when it is considered useful to indicate the sanctioned status of a fungal name, the abbreviation “nom. sanct.” (nomen sanctionatum) should be added in a formal citation, not “: Fr.” or “: Pers.” (i.e. the sanctioning author Fries or Persoon) as was also recommended under the same provision in the Shenzhen Code. The replacement of “: Fr.” or “: Pers.” by “nom. sanct.” is being implemented throughout the Appendices.

Previous Editorial Committees have sought consistency within the Appendices, but a by-product of the development of this database has been that almost complete consistency has become possible in the standard forms for authors’ names and publication titles, in dates of publication, in citation of collectors, in the formatting of entries, and in the abbreviations used in the Appendices. In this context it should be mentioned that dates of publication are now given as precisely as is known, the abbreviation for “tabula” is standardized as “t.” but that for “figura” as “fig.” (avoiding confusion with “f.” for “forma”), and only the surnames – not the initials of forenames – of specimen collectors are listed (the only exception would be if a single specimen had been collected by two collectors with the same surname, but there is currently no such situation in the Appendices).

In recognition of the lead role taken by John Wiersema in the development of the Appendices database and the preparation of the Melbourne Code Appendices, the Editorial Committee agreed that he should be the lead author for the published volume (in Regnum Vegetabile 157) of those Appendices. While no separate publication of the Shenzhen Code Appendices is planned, the recommended citation for Appendices’ data retrieved from this website continues this authorship. Several other members of the Editorial Committee have assisted with the review of portions of the data as follows: Wolf-Henning Kusber for algae, Tom W. May for fungi, Michelle J. Price for bryophytes, Jefferson Prado for pteridophytes, Fred R. Barrie and Sandra Knapp (App. II–V) and Karol Marhold (App. VI–VII) for spermatophytes, and Patrick S. Herendeen for fossils. We express our gratitude to several other scientists for providing valuable feedback during the compilation of the Shenzhen Code Appendices data, including Editorial Committee members Werner Greuter, David L. Hawksworth, John McNeill, and Anna M. Monro as well as Bego ñ a Aguirre-Hudson, Cavan Allen, Santiago Andrés Sánchez, Wendy L. Applequist, Joel Calvo Casas, Vincent Demoulin, Alexander Doweld, Clement Earp, Kanchi Gandhi, Paul M. Kirk, Niels Klazenga, Agustín Lahora, Jean-François Léger, Linda in Arcadia, David J. Mabberley, Willem F. Prud’homme van Reine, Luis A. Parra Sánchez, Scott A. Redhead, Paul van Rijckevorsel, Amy Y. Rossman, Ian M. Turner, Karen L. Wilson, and Gea Zijlstra.

We are particularly grateful to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History’s Department of Botany for hosting the Appendices database and to Sylvia Orli and John Keltner for invaluable assistance in making its content available to worldwide users. With this database, an efficient system is now in place to store data on nomenclatural proposals and decisions and generate Appendix content for future editions of the Code. Because the database is publicly available and searchable on the web (at https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/codes-proposals/), it can also assist proposal authors and editors in maintaining consistency in the preparation and editing of future nomenclature proposals or requests for binding decisions. The database now also provides the means to record corrections of previous entries and to document the basis for those adjustments for future reference.

Berlin & Washington, December 2018 Nicholas J. Turland & John H. Wiersema Rapporteur-général & Vice-rapporteur Nomenclature Section, XIX International Botanical Congress, Shenzhen

last revised 16 December 2019