(218–222) Miscellaneous proposals to amend the Code

When the family name, Pseudoditrichaceae, was proposed (Steere & Iwatsuki, 1974), based on Pseudoditrichum mirabile Steere et Iwatsuki gen. et sp. nov., no Latin diagnosis was furnished for it. oversight is remedied herewith. After publication of Pseudoditrichum mirabile Steere et Iwatsuki gen. et sp. nov. (Steere & Iwatsuki, 1974) with the definite and unambiguous indication that this monotypic genus also constituted the type genus for a new family, Pseudoditrichaceae Steere et Iwatsuki, two bryological colleagues informed us that in their opinion the family name must have a Latin diagnosis in order to be valid. The Preamble to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (1972) states that This Code aims at the provision of a stable method of naming taxonomic groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names which may cause error or ambiguity or science into content downloaded from 157.55.39.112 on Wed, 29 Jun 2016 06:07:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 490 THE BRYOLOGIST [Volume 78 confusion. Our indication of the Pseudoditrichaceae as a new family was in no manner ambiguous, so that this interpretation of the Code seemed to us at first to be unduly legalistic. Our intent was obvious and there was small chance that our oversight could throw science into confusion! As a consequence of the question involved, the senior author requested the opinion of Professor Rogers McVaugh, who had served on the Editorial Committee that prepared and edited the 1972 revision of the Code (Stafleu et al., 1972). We are most grateful to him for his illuminating response: suspect that the Code of Botanical Nomenclature fails to cover your case because it must be only one time in a hundred thousand that a new species in a new genus also turns out to be a new family. The Code is very clear that for 'the name of a monotypic new genus based on a new species' (Art. 42), you may publish a combined generic and specific description or diagnosis, as you have done. Your new genus and species would therefore seem to be validly published (both) on the basis of one description. There is no logic that I can see in excluding the family from this same situation, but apparently no one has ever thought of doing it. Accordingly, as I read the Code, you have to describe the family separately, in Latin. Art. 34 specifically says that the name is not validated by 'the mere mention of the subordinate taxa included,' even, presumably, when there is only one taxon included. Although a family can hardly be considered as a subordinate taxon, we will adhere strictly to the letter of Article 34 of the Code, as recommended by Dr. McVaugh, as follows: Pseudoditrichaceae Steere et Iwatsuki fam. nov. Plantae pertenellae, forma atque magnitudine plantae Ditrichorum simulans. Peristomium duplex, erectum, exterius e 16 dentibus, dentes interni totidem externis oppositi, irregulariter divisis. Type: Pseudoditrichum mirabile Steere et Iwatsuki, Canad. Jour. Bot. 52(4): 701. 1974.

Podocarpospermum, a replacement name for the Acmopyle-like ovule/seed Podospermum Banerji and Ghosh from Lower Cretaceous intertrappean beds of the Rajmahal Basin, India

At the Fifteenth International Botanical Congress, those present and voting tentatively endorsed a requirement for the registration of new names of plants and fungi, beginning 1 Jan 2000, contingent on the approval of the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress in St. Louis in Aug 1999. Registration has already been added to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, as paragraphs 32.1, 32.2, and 45.2. Those paragraphs will have to be removed, of course, if the St. Louis Congress defeats registration. As now envisaged, registration would be a mandatory part of valid publication. A name would not be validly published unless and until it were registered, and the date of publication would be the date of registration, not the date of effective publication, as is presently the case. For most groups of plants and fungi, there is already an excellent system in place for recording and reporting new names. It is decentralized (Kew, Harvard, Missouri, etc.) and voluntary, but it works remarkably well. Many authors who publish names in regional works that might be missed by the indexers send reprints to the appropriate centers, for the obvious reason that it is very much in an author's own interest for his or her new names to be recorded promptly so that they will come to the attention of others working on that group. So far as we know, the institutions that perform this service have not complained of the burden or asked for relief, nor has there been any clamor from botanists worldwide for a change in this well-tested mechanism. This raises two obvious questions: If we now have a system that works, why should we change it? And if we do change it, will the new system be better than the old, or will it bring unexpected disadvantages? The problem with registration lies in the fact that it would be mandatory, and in the potential consequences of that fact. While registration has been presented and generally perceived as a neutral mechanism devised for purely innocent purposes, it is important for all taxonomists to understand what a significant, even radical, departure this would be from the Code of Nomenclature that has served us so well for so long. The present Code is a truly neutral set of rules. It states exactly what one must do to validly publish a new name, and if one meets all those requirements, then one's new name is validly published on the day of effective publication. Note that no one can or must approve or disapprove or otherwise intervene. It does not matter what may be the author's nationality, or bias, or peculiarity. If he or she abides by the Code, the name is published on that date, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Compare that to what would be the situation under registration. It would no longer be sufficient to meet all the present requirements. It would not even be sufficient to submit one's new name for registration. Valid publication, and the date of publication, would now depend on the name's acceptance and approval by functionaries at registration centers, and ultimately at the IAPT Secretariat. If we permit registration to become mandatory, we will be creating the potential for abuse by bureaucrats and autocrats who will have the final say as to whether and when our names have been validly published. Let us consider a hypothetical case. Suppose we should discover an old, neglected name in an unused genus for a species that has long been known by a later name in another genus. The Code now permits one to avoid taking up such an older name by proposing the older name for rejection or the later name for conservation. Some taxonomists feel very strongly that one should pursue one of those possibilities, while oth-

ISHS XXVI International Horticultural Congress: IV International Symposium on Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants 50 YEARS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE FOR CULTIVATED PLANTS: FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR THE CODE

When Microcos cerasifera Chiov. was published by Chiovenda (1929) "=Grewia cerasifera Chiov. in Schedis" was given as a synonym, and in the plate of the species (tab. V, fig. 1) G. cerasifera is used. Glover (1947) subsequently listed the species as Microcos cerasifera Chiov. with Grewia cerasifera as a synonym, whereas Cufodontis (1958) used Grewia cerasifera Chiov. with Microcos cerasifera as a synonym. Lebrun & Stork (1991), finally, cited the species as Grewia cerasifera Chiov. only. It is obvious from the protologue that Microcos cerasifera is the name intended for the species, and that the use of Grewia cerasifera in the plate is a mistake. The two names, therefore, cannot be regarded as alternative names as permitted by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) for names published before 1 January 1953 (Article 34.2). The use of Grewia cerasifera Chiov. by Cufodontis (1958) and Lebrun & Stork (1991) is therefore incorrect. Also, this name cannot be regarded as a new combination published by Cufodontis as he did not give a "full and direct reference" to the basionym as demanded by Article 33.2 of the ICBN for combinations on or after 1 January 1953. My conclusion is that the combination Grewia cerasifera has not been validly published by previous authors. As the name is needed for the forthcoming volume 2 of the Flora of Somalia, the necessary new combination is made below.

Changes to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are decided on every 6 years at Nomenclature Sections associated with International Botanical Congresses (IBC). The XVIII IBC was held in Melbourne, Australia; the Nomenclature Section met on 18–22 July 2011 and its decisions were accepted by the Congress at its plenary session on 30 July. Several important changes were made to the Code as a result of this meeting that will affect publication of new names. Two of these changes will come into effect on 1 January 2012, some months before the Melbourne Code is published. Electronic material published online in Portable Document Format (PDF) with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) will constitute effective publication, and the requirement for a Latin description or diagnosis for names of new taxa will be changed to a requirement for a description or diagnosis in either Latin or English. In addition, effective from 1 January 2013, new names of organisms treated as fungi must, in order to be validly published, include in the protologue (everything associated with a name at its valid publication) the citation of an identifier issued by a recognized repository (such as MycoBank). Draft text of the new articles dealing with electronic publication is provided and best practice is outlined. To encourage dissemination of the changes made to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants , this article will be published in Brittonia, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, BMC Evolutionary Biology, Cladistics, Mycotaxon, MycoKeys, New Phytologist, North American Fungi, Novon, Opuscula Philolichenum, PhytoKeys, Phytoneuron, Phytotaxa, Plant Diversity and Resources, Systematic Botany and Taxon .

Various ichnotaxonomic names have been proposed for microbially influenced sedimentary structures, but despite the historically broad scope of ichnotaxa allowed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, recent opinion rejects these names for the Zoological Code. Nevertheless, such names are allowed by generous provisions for fossil genera (previously form genera) in the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi and Plants. Fossil genera, such as Neantia, Rameshia and Rugalichnus, describe various undulose and striated textures of aquatic microbial mats. In contrast, the complex hackly, fissured and microtuffeted surfaces widely called ‘old elephant skin’ texture have been assigned to Rivularites repertus. The type specimen of that species has been lost since bombardment of Nancy in 1914. The locality exposing the Upper Triassic (Carnian), Grès à Roseaux Member of the Keuper Formation at Gemmelaincourt, France, is an abandoned coal mine, but has waste piles still available for collecting. This study describes a proposed neotype of the ichnospecies, and other fossils relevant to its environmental interpretation. The neotype of Rivularites came from coal measures with interbedded evaporites of a coastal plain, and is a non-marine texture as apparent from evidence of alternate desiccation, intergrowth and healing. Gregory J. Retallack [ gregr@uoregon.edu ], Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oregon. Eugene, OR 97403, USA

The current International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) prescribes how to form the genitive case for personal names that are not of Latin form and that end in a consonant other than er. Article 60.8(b) specifies that the genitive for masculine nouns is formed by adding ii (singular) or iorum (plural), and for feminine nouns by adding iae (sing.) or iarum (pl.). Thus, one would render the genitive of the personal name “Smith” as, depending on the gender and number, smithii or smithiorum, or as smithiae or smithiarum. Latin grammar books (e.g. LaFleur, Wheelock's Latin, ed. 7. 2011), however, prescribe a slightly different set of genitive endings for these nouns: namely, for masculine, i (sing.) or orum (pl.), and for feminine, ae (sing.) or arum (pl.). As many taxonomists have probably noted, these endings are used by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ed. 4, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999), resulting in names such as Paramecium woodruffi (honouring Woodruff, masculine) and P. grohmannae (honouring Grohmann, feminine). Therefore, by comparison, it would appear that the Shenzhen Code requires an extra i between the noun and its genitive case ending. This interpolated i is called a “stem augmentation” in Art. 60.8(b) and (d). Why does the Shenzhen Code apparently use different endings than those of classical Latin and the zoological Code? Actually, the Shenzhen Code uses the same endings as in classical Latin and the zoological Code. The difference is how the Shenzhen Code creates the stem of the noun to which the genitive endings are added. The process is thus: the surname “Smith” is first put into Latin form by adding ius, resulting in smithius. Note that this process gives rise to stem augmentation because the interpolated i is part of the newly latinized stem. The genitive is then formed by the normal rules of Latin grammar: the us is dropped, resulting in smithi, and then the appropriate genitive ending is added. If the word is a masculine singular noun, i is added, resulting in smithii; or if plural, orum is added, resulting in smithiorum. Nowhere is this process explained in the Code. It should be. Without an explanation, taxonomists will not understand how a stem augmentation arises. Also, they will not readily appreciate why names already of Latin form lack a stem augmentation and end in a single i, as when, for example, Hieronymus (meaning “Jerome”) is inflected with only one i, resulting in hieronymi. To address this deficiency in the Code, we propose the following amendments to Art. 60.8 clauses (b) and (d) and Ex. 17, and a new entry in the Glossary defining “stem augmentation”. “(b) If the personal name ends with a consonant (but not in -er), substantival epithets are formed by latinizing them with -ius, then dropping the -us and adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus the genitive inflection appropriate to the gender and number of the person(s) honoured (e.g. Lecard-ius, lecard-i-i for Lecard (m), Wilson-ius, wilson-i-ae for Wilson (f), Verlot-ius, verlot-i-orum for the Verlot brothers, Braun-ius, braun-i-arum for the Braun sisters, Mason-ius, mason-i-orum for Mason, father and daughter).” “(d) If the personal name ends with a consonant, adjectival epithets are formed by latinizing the personal name with -ius, then dropping the -us and adding -i- (stem augmentation) plus -an- (stem of adjectival suffix) plus the nominative singular inflection appropriate to the gender of the generic name (e.g. Rosa webbi-ana for Webb, Desmodium griffithi-anum for Griffith, Verbena hassleri-ana for Hassler).” “Ex. 17. In Rhododendron ‘potanini' Batalin (in Trudy Imp. S.-Peterburgsk. Bot. Sada 11: 489. 1892), commemorating G. N. Potanin, the epithet is to be spelled potaninii under Art. 60.8(b) because Potanin is first put in Latin form by adding -ius to create potaninius; then the genitive is formed by first dropping the -us to yield potanini- (the final -i- is the stem augmentation) and then adding the masculine genitive singular ending -i, resulting in the epithet potaninii). However, in Phoenix theophrasti Greuter (in Bauhinia 3: 243. 1967), commemorating Theophrastus, it is not spelled ‘theophrastii' because Rec. 60C.1 applies.” “stem augmentation. [Not defined] – the -i- at the end of the stem of a specific or infraspecific epithet derived from a personal name not already of Latin form and ending in a consonant. It results from latinizing the personal name by adding -ius (e.g. Smith to smithius), then dropping the -us to yield the stem (smithi-), to which is added the appropriate genitive ending (smithi-i, masc. sing.; smithi-orum, masc. pl.; smithi-ae, fem. sing.; smithi-arum, fem. pl.) (Art. 60.8(b) and (d)). Similarly, adjectival epithets are formed by first latinizing the personal name by adding -ius, then adding an adjectival suffix (-an-) to which is attached the appropriate nominative singular inflection.”

Linnaeus included all of the cacti in the genus Cactus; however, it was early apparent that this included numerous more or less distinctive complexes, which were each in turn recognized as genera. The primarily columnar cacti were separated as Cereus by Philip Miller in 1754, the flat, jointed (beavertail) group as Opuntia by Miller in 1754, and the mammiform (pin cushion) group as Mammillaria by Haworth in 1812. It is interesting to note that as various assemblages were recognized under separate generic names, the genus name Cactus was lost, creating a situation contrary to the rules of nomenclature and not rectified until the formation of the Nomina Generica Conservada (cf. International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, 1961). Mammillaria itself included several rather distinctive species-groups which have been variously recognized as sections or separate genera. Among those generic names bearing upon the assemblage here regarded as constituting the genus Neobesseya are Mammillaria, Coryphantha, Neomammillaria, and Neobesseya. The boundaries between these complexes are still subject to investigation. Britton (1901) and Rydberg (1906) recognized the genus Cactus (on the basis of the American code of nomenclature, under which these men worked). In 1932 Rydberg placed the group in the genus Neomammillaria. In the eighth edition of Gray's Manual (1950), Fernald treated the group as Mammillaria. A major published work on the Cactaceae is the four volume monograph of the family by N. L. Britton and J. N. Rose. Their generic delimitations of Neobesseya have been adopted in this revision. Curt Backeberg (1961) included Neobesseya in his treatment of the Cactaceae and has followed the nomenclature of Britton & Rose.

Previous articleNext article No AccessNew Biological BooksNomenclature of Plants. A Text for the Application by the Case Method of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Harold St. John Askell LoveAskell Love Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Quarterly Review of Biology Volume 34, Number 3Sep., 1959 Published in association with Stony Brook University Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/402765 PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

The taxonomy of Stromboideans has, historically, been simplistic. However, recent revisions have seen new taxa introduced to distinguish relationships between species clusters. We discuss these numerous advancements in Stromboidean systematics, and describe two new subfamilies here. The key diagnostic characteristic, the basal peg on the first lateral tooth, splits the Strombidae into two clades similar to those observed with molecular data. In defining the new subfamilies, Neoaligerinae and Neostrombinae, we demonstrate that the practical application of the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode 2020), can also conform to the requirements of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999). This revision further advances and strengthens the framework of Stromboidean nomenclature such that it is able to reflect the current understanding of the evolutionary relationships between members of the Stromboidea.

Johnson et al. (2020a) provided a comprehensive overview of Teleosauroidea, a diverse group of Mesozoic crocodylomorphs that lived in freshwater-to-marine ecosystems across the world. Johnson et al. (2020a) performed numerous phylogenetic analyses on Teleosauroidea and used them to establish a new taxonomic framework for this long-neglected clade. However, therein the numerous new teleosauroid clades were not properly registered in accordance with the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode). Herein we correct this error. We also replace the clade name Aeolodontinae with Aeolodontini, to ensure we do not inadvertently create two different names for this clade under the PhyloCode and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.

For 250 years, taxonomists have relied on having access to physical copies of published works in order to verify information about taxa. The difficulty of tracking down publications can be a substantial impediment to taxonomic work, which has led some researchers to advocate modifying the codes of nomenclature, for plants and bacteria as well as for animals, to allow electronic publication of scientific names (Knapp et al. 2007, Wheeler & Krell 2007).

The scientific name of a plant or cultivated plant other than must be easy to remember should be easily understood and easy to pronounce, must also have a unity of specific meaning and apply universally. Until now it is still often a mistake in writing the scientific name of plants. This research has developed a database management system and biodiversity information based on the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), Graphical User Interface of a web-based system with the Model View Controller PHP framework of Laravel. To date, in the database are collecting data as many 1482 record tree species, 86 records of wood species and their characteristics, 233 records of plant forest medicinal species, and 80 records of bamboo data types with the identification of the scientific naming of botanical codes. Based on the plant's nomenclature taxonomy, the System can facilitate and accelerate the dissemination of biodiversity data and information to Borneo as one of the largest centers of biodiversity.

(206) Proposal to guide the choice among grammatical forms in epithets with uncertain grammatical status