singhm at GIASDLA.VSNL.NET.IN
Thu May 28 08:05:35 CDT 1998
Following two extracts from the BioCode should answer the debate on date of operation
Introduction to BioCode (1997)
Key changes from Third Draft (1996):
The following substantive changes were made to the 1996 "Third draft"
1. The putative operational date has been changed from "1 January
2000", to "1 January 200 n ", recognizing that the original "notional"
date (cf. McNeill, 1996, p.16) could not be met given the timings of
relevant meetings of the bodies responsible for the existing Codes .
Equally, the urgency of having a BioCode in place for adoption as
major groups achieve modern approaches to nomenclature is recognized
by indicating a date within the first decade of the millennium. (Pre.
2, 3; Art. 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 16 Note 1 , 18.1, 19.1, 28.3, 28 Note 1 , 37.2
- 37.4, 38.2, 38.3)
2. The provisions of this Code shall apply to names of all kinds of
organisms, whether eukaryotic or prokaryotic, fossil or non-fossil10,
and of some fossil traces of organisms, that are published and
established on or after 1 January 200n11, and shall govern the choice of
name when these names compete among themselves or with earlier
names.They shall also, and without limitation of date, provide, in the
interest of nomenclatural stability and security, for the protection,
conservation, or suppression of all such names, as well as for their
correct form and spelling. - ICBN, Pre. 7; ICZN, Pre. 
11 The precise date upon which the BioCode will take effect is presently
unknown. The date will be established by the ICB after approval of
authority transfer by the bodies responsible for the Special Codes, as
detailed in Div. III. 3.
On Wed, 27 May 1998, Paul DESSART wrote:
> Dear Taxonomists of any Reign
> I have read with interest the Draft of the future BioCode and it seemed
> to me interesting and useful, as a whole.
> One point, however, looks rather illogical - but is said subject to
> discussion ("not regarded as an actual target"), namely the starting point
> of the Code: 1st January 2000. Why choosing such a banal, trivial date?
> Waiting one year more - namely 1st January 2001, the starting point
> would be simultaneously the 1st day of the 3rd millennium and the 1st
> day of the XXIst century. Not more exciting?
> Paul Dessart,
> Chef honoraire de la Section Insectes et Arachnomorphes
> a l'Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique,
> 29, rue Vautier,
> B-1000 Bruxelles, Belgique
More information about the Taxacom