Proposed ICBN floor amendment for Art. 35

Wed May 26 08:20:00 CDT 1999


A New Provision and Three Examples for Art. 35 of the International Code of
Botanical Nomenclature

James L. Reveal

Norton-Brown Herbarium, University of Maryland.
College Park, MD 20742-5815, U.S.A.

In their comments on Art. 35.2 Prop. A, the Rapporteurs indicated they
"would be happier if the change intended by the proposed 'voted Examples'
were restricted to the period prior to 1906 (effective 1 Jan 1908), so as to
preclude the risk of retroactively eliminating later suprageneric names."
Their concern is appropriate for it was not until the Vienna Code that
modern terminations were introduced into the Code. With the help of several
correspondents, I introduce a new article (35.2quarter) and a new example
(Ex. 2quinquies) to be presented on the floor of the Nomenclature Session at
the XVI International Botanical Congress in St. Louis. I submit my
intentions now to introduce the new text so members of the botanical
community might evaluate the proposals prior to the St. Louis meeting.

If adopted, suprageneric names proposed prior to 1 Jan 1908 would be
considered to be unranked when the author of the name did not indicate a
rank. However, names proposed on or after 1 Jan 1908 without a rank
generally would be considered ranked if the author used one of the
terminations specified in Art. 17, 18 and 19 as well as Rec. 16A. The two
caveats would ensure that names with misplaced ranks would continue to be
unacceptable. The new article would deal with the failure of some modern
authors to provide "a clear indication of the rank" to new names after 1 Jan
1953 as required by Art. 35.1 (see the consequence in Art. 33.5). The
wording makes clear the exception applies only to suprageneric names.

Failure to adopt the proposed article will result in hundreds of changes of
suprageneric nomenclature over that now in current use and especially in the
names listed in Index Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium.

I wish to thank the several individuals who provided ideas, comments and
revised wording. Once again the wonders of the web comes through!

35.2bquater. For suprageneric names published on or after 1 January 1908,
the use of one of the terminations specified by Art. 17-19 and Rec. 16A is
accepted as an indication of the corresponding rank, unless this (a) would
conflict with the explicitly designated rank of the taxon (which takes
precedence) or (b) would result in a rank sequence contrary to Art. 5 (in
which case Art. 33.5 applies).

Ex. 2bis. Jussieu (in Mm. Mus. Hist. Nat. 12: 497. 1827) proposed
Zanthoxyleae without specifying the rank. Although he employed the
termination for tribe (-eae), the name is still unranked and the correct
citation is Zanthoxyleae (A. Juss.) Dumort. (Anal. Fam. Pl.: 45. 1829) when
the rank of tribe was ascribed by Dumortier to the Jussieu name.

Ex. 2quater. Lindley (Veg. Kingd.: 1846) assigned "subordo" (i.e., subfam.:
Art. 19.2), "section" and "tribe" to some of his infrafamilial names; as a
result, those names not assigned any rank are unranked regardless of the
typography or arrangement of the names in the work, or the termination
employed for each name.

Ex. 2quinquies. The names Parnassiales (p. 243), Lophiolaceae (p. 225),
Ranzanioideae (p. 239) and Urospatheae (p. 217) are validly published by
Nakai (Chosakuronbun Mokuroku [Ord. Fam. Trib. Nov.], 1943) and are to be
accepted at the ranks of order, family, subfamily and tribe respectively by
virtue of their terminations even though no rank was stated specifically.

In examining this question, the wording of the current Art. 35.2 was found
to confound the definition of an unranked name given in Art. 35.1. The
Editorial Committee may wish to consider a slight rewording and a deletion
as follows (changes in bold italics.

35.2. A new name or combination published before 1 January 1953 without a
clear indication of the rank of the corresponding taxon is validly published
provided [delete the word "that"] all other requirements for valid
publication are fulfilled; it is, however, inoperative in questions of
priority except for homonymy (see Art. 53.5). If it is a new name, it may
serve as a basionym or replaced synonym of a name of a taxon in a definite
rank [delete the expression "for subsequent combinations or avowed
substitutes in definite ranks"].

More information about the Taxacom mailing list