How to change the Code

Sandra Knapp
Natural History Museum, London
With generous sharing of slides
from John McNeill

DIVISION III.
PROVISIONS FOR
THE GOVERNANCE OF THE CODE
Div.III.1. The Code may be modified only
by action of a plenary session of an
International Botanical Congress on a
resolution moved by the Nomenclature
Section of that Congress.

How does this happen?

Basic procedure
After each new edition of the Code appears, proposals to
amend it are published in Taxon, where they are numbered
serially.
Shortly prior to the next International Botanical Congress, a
Synopsis of proposals assembles all published proposals,
organized by Article and Recommendation, and republishes
them with appropriate comments from the Rapporteurgnral and Vice-rapporteur but without the justification
accompanying the original publication.
A ballot for the Preliminary Mail Vote (an entirely advisory
opinion from individuals) is sent at the same time as the
Synopsis to those entitled to vote, and the ballots are
tabulated so that the results are available at the
Nomenclature Section of the Congress.
The Nomenclature Section, meeting ahead of the main
sessions of the Congress, considers proposals, including
any amendments offered, and acts upon them on the basis
of a combination of individual and institutional votes.
Decisions of the Nomenclature Section are ratified by vote
of a plenary session of the Congress.

Basic procedure
New Code
published

Proposed
changes
published
in Taxon

Editorial Committee
writes the new Code

IBC plenary ratifies

the decisions of the
NS
NS considers proposed
changes and votes

Synopsis of all
proposed
changes
published in
Taxon

Mail vote ballots sent

to those eligible

Nomenclature
Section (NS)
meets prior to
IBC

How is it organised?
Division III of the ICN (Provisions for the Governance of
the Code) provides an outline of the overall organization of
the nomenclature of algae, fungi, and plants, which is
helpful in understanding the whole process of applying the
Code and making changes to it.
The diagram Organizational chart of Nomenclature (ICN
2013) attempts to illustrate the organizational structure
of plant nomenclature.

Organizational chart of
Nomenclature (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.), Biological
nomenclature today. IUBS Monograph Series 2: 326.
ICSU Press, Miami, Florida & IRL Press, Eynsham,
Oxford, UK.

Organizational chart of
Nomenclature (ICN 2013)

Nomenclatural administration
IUBS (International Union of Biological
Sciences) and IAMBS(International Association
of Botanical and Mycological Societies international botanical and mycological
organizations that are scientific members of
IUBS) recommend venue for International
Botanical Congress (IBC) to be held every 6
years from applications received
Venue selected by vote of Plenary Session of
IBC
Shenzhen selected by IAMBS, ratified by IBC in
Melbourne

Authority for the Code

Rests with successive International
Botanical Congresses (each independent
and with own organising committee)
Final Plenary Session of each IBC adopts
the proposals to amend the Code,
approves names proposed for
conservation and rejection and appoints
Rapporteur-gnral and various
committees

What if no IBC?
Division III.1 (footnote) authority
transferred to the International Union of
Biological Sciences (IUBS) or to an
institution that at the time corresponding to
it.
General Committee empowered to define
how this is done.
This is how zoology works

Organizational chart of
Nomenclature (ICN 2013)

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
http://http://www.iapt-taxon.org/

Organizational chart of
Nomenclature (ICN 2013)

Bureau of Nomenclature
President (appointed by Congress
Organising Committee COC)
Rapporteur-gnral (elected by previous
Congress Nomenclature Section)
Vice-rapporteur (appointed by the COC on
the nomination of the Rapporteur-gnral)
Recorder (appointed by the COC, usually
from country of Congress)

Organizational chart of
Nomenclature (ICN 2013)

Composition of Nomenclature
Section
Individuals who attend in person (one
person = one vote)
Institutional representatives or their
proxies (these are also individuals who
can votes as individuals)
Institutional votes based on list of herbaria
drawn up by Bureau of Nomenclature and
approved by General Committee vary
between 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 any
individual
Institutional votes help to damp the regional
nature of attendance at Congresses

Comparative statistics.
Congress

Proposals

Ballots
returned

Regular
members

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

McNeill & al. in Taxon 60: 1507. 2011.

Organizational chart of
Nomenclature (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
New Code
published

Proposed
changes
published
in Taxon

Editorial Committee
writes the new Code

IBC plenary ratifies

the decisions of the
NS
NS considers proposed
changes and votes

Synopsis of all
proposed
changes
published in
Taxon

Mail vote ballots sent

to those eligible

Nomenclature
Section (NS)
meets prior to
IBC

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

Mail ballot indicative only

Congress

Proposals

Ballots
returned

Regular
members

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

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 the
Nomenclature Section UNLESS..
A proposal is made by an individual
attending the Section from the floor and 4
others attending second it

Nomenclature Section
First approve the previous Code as a
basis 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

Comparative statistics.
Congress

Proposals

Ballots
returned

Regular
members

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

McNeill & al. in Taxon 60: 1507. 2011.

Card votes
Description

Vote type

Yes

No

Total

% Yes

Vote 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. G
e-appendices to
Melbourne 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 takes
priority

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.
8.4
lyophilized 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 Editorial
Committee

103

31%

Rejected

154 (39 wdrawn; 24

wdrawn in favour of
new)

46%

Submitted

338

100%

New from floor

(accepted)

28 (12)

<50% success

Ongoing nomenclatural activity

Permanent Nomenclature Committees, mainly
evaluating proposals to modify the application of
the Code in particular cases (conservation and
rejection of names) and ruling on the application
of two particular provisions of the Code.
Special Committees to investigate matters of
ongoing concern and to report to the
Nomenclature Section of the next IBC (to be
held in Shenzhen, China, in July 2017)

Organizational chart of
Nomenclature (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 with
respect to fungi)
Harmonization of nomenclature of Cyanophyta /
Cyanobacteria (to be established in association
with relevant appointees from the Commission on
Prokaryote Nomenclature)
Institutional votes
Publications using a largely mechanical method
of selection of types (Art. 10.5) (especially under
the American Code)
Registration of algal and plant names (including
fossils)

Resolution from the Nomenclature

Section (as accepted 31 July 2011)
The XVIII International Botanical Congress resolves that the
decisions of its Nomenclature Section with respect to the
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (now to be
the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi,
and plants), as well as the appointment of officers and
members of the nomenclature committees, made by that
section during its meetings, 1822 July, be accepted,
noting with interest that specified types of electronic
publication are now [i.e. from the implementation date of 1
January 2012] effective for nomenclatural purposes, that
descriptions of new taxa may now appear in English or
Latin, that, for valid publication, new names of fungi must
include citation of an identifier issued by a recognized
repository that will register the name, and that the Code
will henceforth provide for a single name for all fungi and
for all fossils falling under its provisions

Permanent Committees
All volunteers institutions often give
people 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 the
community)

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!
New Code
published

Proposed
changes
published
in Taxon

Editorial Committee
writes the new Code

IBC plenary ratifies

the decisions of the
NS
NS considers proposed
changes and votes

Synopsis of all
proposed
changes
published in
Taxon

Mail vote ballots sent

to those eligible

Nomenclature
Section (NS)
meets prior to
IBC

Setting it in action!
New Code
published

Proposed
changes
published
in Taxon

Editorial Committee
writes the new Code

IBC plenary ratifies

the decisions of the
NS
NS considers proposed
changes and votes

Synopsis of all
proposed
changes
published in
Taxon

Mail vote ballots sent

to those eligible

Nomenclature
Section (NS)
meets prior to
IBC

..This nomenclature, which we now strive to

improve, will appear like an old scaffolding,
laboriously patched together and surrounded by a
heap of somewhat embarassing rubbish that has
arisen from the accumulation of successively
rejected structures. Then perhaps there will arise
something wholly different to Linnaean
nomenclature, something so designed as to give
certain and definite names to certain and definite
groups.
That is the secret of the future, a future still very
distant.
Alphonse de Candolle (1867) Lois de la nomenclature botanique

Meanwhile, let us perfect the system

introduced by Linnaeus. Let us try to adapt it
to the continual and necessary changes in
our science.; let us attack abuses and
negligence; and let us come to
understanding on debated points, if
possible.
We shall thus have paved the way for the
practice of science for many years to come.
Alphonse de Candolle (1867) Lois de la nomenclature botanique