Report on botanical nomenclature—Vienna 2005. XVII International Botanical Congress, Vienna: Nomenclature Section, 12–16 July 2005

PrefaceThis is the official Report on the deliberations and decisions of the ten sessions of the Nomenclature Section of the XVII International Botanical Congress held in Vienna, Austria, from 12–16 July 2005. The meetings of the Section took place on these five consecutive days prior to the Congress proper. The Section meetings were hosted by the Institute of Botany, University of Vienna, Austria. Technical facilities included full electronic recording of all discussion spoken into the microphones. Text of all proposals to amend the Code was displayed on one screen allowing suggested amendments to be updated as appropriate. The team at the University of Vienna (Christopher Dixon, Jeong-Mi Park, Ovidiu Paun, Carolin A. Redernig and Dieter Reich) ensured that the proceedings ran smoothly and enjoyably for all.A report of the decisions of the Section was published soon after the Congress (McNeill & al. in Taxon 54: 1057–1064. 2005). It includes a tabulation of the preliminary mail vote on the published proposals, specifying how the Section acted on each and detailing amendments and new proposals approved upon motions from the floor. It also includes the report of the Nominating Committee as well as the Congress resolution ratifying the Section’s decisions, neither reproduced here. The main result of the Section’s deliberations is the Vienna Code, which was published as Regnum Vegetabile 146, on 20 Sep 2006 (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006). It was also published online, on the same date (see http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php).The present report of the proceedings of the Vienna Nomenclature Section conveys, we believe, a true and lively picture of the event. It is primarily based on the MP3 electronic recordings, with, where necessary, supplementation by the comment slips submitted by most speakers and by reference to parallel tape-recording, particularly where there were gaps in the MP3 record. With these sources combined, and with all motions and voting results double-checked through the soundtrack and published preliminary report of the Section meeting based on two parallel series of notes by the Rapporteur and the Recorder, we are confident that the record published hereunder is accurate and complete as possible. The delayed production of the report has, however, meant that it has not been possible to include the text of some of the proposals made from the floor, particularly those that were unsuccessful, as no permanent electronic record was made and it was not possible to locate written records for some of these.Before it was cast into its present, final form, this Report went through a succession of phases. The Vienna Section was, as already noted, recorded electronically. One day of each recording was then transcribed by Fred Barrie (Wednesday), Dan Nicolson (Thursday), Nicholas Turland (Friday), and David Hawksworth (Saturday). For the remaining day, Tuesday 12 July, part of the first session was transcribed by John McNeill but the remainder was professionally transcribed by Pacific Transcription, Queensland, Australia and cross-checked and edited by Anna Monro. Apart from some initial editing of the Acacia debate and other small portions of text by John McNeill, the entire work of converting the partially edited version of the transcript to report format was accomplished by Christina Flann. At that time some portions were rearranged to ensure that the Report reflects the sequence of relevant provisions in the Code even when the order of the debates differed. Deviations from the chronology of events are indicated in the text by italicized bracketed notes. John McNeill then undertook the completion of some missing portions from the tape-recordings and from other sources, but, otherwise, these first two authors took an equal share in proof-reading the final version of the text.As in the case of previous nomenclature reports, which the present one faithfully follows in style and general layout, the spoken comments had to be condensed and partly reworded, rarely rather drastically. For this reason, indirect speech has been used consistently. Additions by the authors of this Report are placed between square brackets; they include explanatory or rectifying notes, records of reactions of the audience (to illustrate the sessions’ emotional background) and reports on procedural actions, unless they form a paragraph of their own. As in previous reports, the index to speakers has been integrated with the list of registered Section members.The Section in Vienna attracted 198 registered members carrying 402 institutional votes in addition to their personal votes, making a total of 600 possible votes (detailed by McNeill & al. in Taxon 54: 1057, Table 1. 2005). There were seven card votes, including one pertaining to the controversial Acacia issue. The Vienna Congress was fairly conservative in nomenclatural matters in comparison with some earlier Congresses. Relatively few changes were accepted, but a small number of significant ones and many useful clarifications and improvements were adopted. Perhaps the most important decision regarded the publication status of theses submitted for a higher degree. The Congress took the unusual step of accepting a retroactive change in the Code by deciding that no independent non-serial publication stated to be a thesis submitted for a higher degree on or after 1 January 1953 would be considered an effectively published work without a statement to that effect or other internal evidence. Several proposals on criteria for valid publication of names were considered and clarifications were accepted. Article 33 on new combinations was also further clarified. Three important sets of changes were accepted applying to names of fossil plants, pleomorphic fungi and fungi that had previously been named under the ICZN. Further details and other changes are outlined in the Preface to the Vienna Code itself.The inclusion for the first time of a Glossary is a notable achievement of the Vienna Code. It is very closely linked to the wording of the Code and only nomenclatural terms defined in the Code can be included. Paul C. Silva initiated the project, prepared the first draft for consideration by the Editorial Committee and worked over several subsequent ones, ensuring precision and consistency.It is worth noting that, despite the series of highly charged articles relating to the Acacia issue preceding the meeting, all debate on the issue was undertaken in a positive atmosphere, focussing on finding a solution to the dissatisfaction, and the results were graciously accepted by most.Thanks for that are due to Dan Nicolson as President of the Section, who with the other members of the Bureau of Nomenclature, made it all run smoothly. We also thank Pensoft Publishing for agreeing to publish this Report as an issue of PhytoKeys. Our thanks also go to the International Association for Plant Taxonomy for contributing to the costs of producing this Report.Christina Flann & John McNeil

(276–279) Proposals to provide for registration of new names and nomenclatural acts

The Melbourne Congress of 2011 authorized a Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names (including fossils), which was established the following year (Wilson in Taxon 61: 878–879. 2012). Its explicit mandate was “to consider what would be involved in registering algal and plant names (including fossils), using a procedure analogous to that for fungal names agreed upon in Melbourne and included in the Code as Art. 42”, but expectations at the Nomenclature Section in Melbourne went farther than that. There was the hope that registration systems for at least some of the main groups would soon be set up, to be used and tested on a voluntary basis and, if found to be generally accepted, would persuade the subsequent Congress in Shenzhen, in 2017, to declare registration of new names an additional requirement for valid publication. The Melbourne Congress also approved mandatory registration of nomenclatural novelties in fungi, starting on 1 Jan 2013. The new Art. 42 of the Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) requires authors to register any fungal nomenclatural novelty, prior to publication, with a recognized repository, whereupon they are provided with a unique identifier for each name, to be included in the protologue along with other Code-mandated information. Years before registration became mandatory, mycologists had been encouraged, often prompted by journal editors, to register their nomenclatural novelties prior to publication. Most complied. Consequently, when mandatory registration was proposed, it had strong support from the mycological community. There are currently three recognized repositories for fungal names. They vary somewhat in how they operate, but they share records of their registered novelties as soon as publication has been effected. One consequence of implementing mandatory registration is that locating new fungal names and combinations and associated protologue information is much simpler now than it was before. This makes it easier to incorporate the information into taxonomic studies and to update taxonomic treatments, inventories, and indices. A corollary is that, no matter what publication outlet an author chooses, the name cannot fail to be noticed. The positive experience in mycology makes extension of the registration concept to plants and algae a compelling idea. That experience shows that the best way to make mandatory registration of nomenclatural novelties palatable to botanists and phycologists is the establishment of trial registration at repositories with a history of involvement in and commitment to the indexing of names. Trial registration enables users to acquaint themselves with registration procedures, make suggestions on how they might be improved, and appreciate, by personal experience, the benefits of registration. Unfortunately, the task of establishing such repositories proved to be more complex and time-consuming than had been foreseen. Substantial progress has been made in the establishment of such centres (Barkworth & al., in this issue, pp. 670–672) but the Committee is not in a position to make firm proposals to regulate registration procedures, even less to make registration mandatory from a concrete future date. Nevertheless, the Committee sees it as imperative that the Shenzhen Congress be offered the opportunity to move forward with registration without having to wait six more years. In this spirit, we offer the proposals below. Proposal (276) would declare registration an ongoing concern of the botanical, mycological, and phycological community and provide the basic structure for making it possible. Proposal (277) and Prop. (278) would, in addition, define a flexible framework within which a system of voluntary registration could be developed for various categories of organisms. Proposal (279) would provide for future mandatory registration in a way that does not depend on the six-year intervals between International Botanical Congresses. Presentation of each proposal is followed by a summary of the support received from members of the Committee.Fil: Barkworth, Mary E.. State University of Utah; Estados UnidosFil: Watson, Mark. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Barrie, Fred R.. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados Unidos. Field Museum Of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Belyaeva, Irina V.. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Chung, Richard C. K.. Forest Research Institute ; MalasiaFil: Dasková, Jirina. Národní Muzeum; República ChecaFil: Davidse, Gerrit. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados UnidosFil: Dönmez, Ali A.. Hacettepe Üniversitesi; TurquíaFil: Doweld, Alexander B.. National Institute Of Carpology; RusiaFil: Dressler, Stefan. Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut Und Naturmuseum; AlemaniaFil: Flann, Christina. Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Países BajosFil: Gandhi, Kanchi. Harvard University; Estados UnidosFil: Geltman, Dmitry. Russian Academy of Science; RusiaFil: Glen, Hugh F.. Forest Hills; SudáfricaFil: Greuter, Werner. Freie Universität Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Head, Martin J.. Brock University; CanadáFil: Jahn, Regine. Freie Universität Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Janarthanam, Malapati K.. Goa University; IndiaFil: Katinas, Liliana. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. División de Plantas Vasculares; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; ArgentinaFil: Kirk, Paul M.. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Klazenga, Niels. Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria; AustraliaFil: Kusber, Wolf-Henning. Freie Universität Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Kvacek, Jirí. Národní Muzeum; República ChecaFil: Malécot, Valéry. Universite D'angers; FranciaFil: Mann, David G.. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Marhold, Karol. Charles University; República ChecaFil: Nagamasu, Hidetoshi. Kyoto University; JapónFil: Nicolson, Nicky. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Paton, Alan. Royal Botanic Gardens; Reino UnidoFil: Patterson, David J.. The University Of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Price, Michelle J.. Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève; SuizaFil: van Reine, Willem F Prud' Homme. Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Países BajosFil: Schneider, Craig W.. Trinity College Hartford; Estados UnidosFil: Sennikov, Alexander. Russian Academy Of Sciences; RusiaFil: Smith, Gideon F.. Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University; Sudáfrica. Universidad de Coimbra; PortugalFil: Stevens, Peter F.. Missouri Botanical Garden; Estados Unidos. University of Missouri; Estados UnidosFil: Yang, Zhu-Liang. Kunming Institute Of Botany Chinese Academy Of Sciences; ChinaFil: Zhang, Xian-Chun. Chinese Academy of Sciences; República de ChinaFil: Zuccarello, Giuseppe C.. Victoria University Of Wellington; Nueva Zeland