Applequist, W.

Demissew, S.

Deng, Y.F.

Figueiredo, E.

Fortunato, R.

Freire-Fierro, A.

Gereau, R.E.

Landrum, L.R.

Moore, G.

Prado, J.

Quintanar Sánchez, Alejandro

Smith, G.F.

Wen, J.

English

Digital.CSIC

to define proper ethical practice in nomenclatural research and toestablish procedures of conduct in situations when a threat to scien-tific integrity could occur. Based on the above comments, we are pro-posing the following addition to the Shenzhen Code.(192) Add a new Chapter E in Division II:“1. Authors proposing new names should observe the followingprinciples, which together constitute a Code of Ethics.2. An author should not publish a new name if he or she hasreason to believe that another person has already recognized the sametaxon and intends to establish a name for it (or that the taxon is to benamed in a posthumous work). An author in such a position shouldcommunicatewith the other person (or their representatives) and onlyfeel free to establish a new name if that person has failed to do so in areasonable period (not less than a year).3. An author should not publish a new replacement name(nomen novum) or other substitute name for a junior homonymwhenthe author of the latter is alive; that author should be informed of thehomonymy and be allowed a reasonable time (at least a year) in whichto establish a substitute name.4. No author should propose a name that, to his or herknowledge or reasonable belief, would be likely to give offence onany grounds.5. Intemperate language should not be used in any discussion orwriting which involves nomenclature, and all debates should be con-ducted in a courteous and friendly manner.6. Editors and others responsible for the publication of scientificpapers should avoid publishing anymaterial which appears to them tocontain a breach of the above principles.7. The observation of these principles is a matter for the properfeelings and conscience of individual scientists, and none of thePermanent Nomenclature Committees (Div. III Prov. 7.1) is empow-ered to investigate or rule upon alleged breaches of them.”(193) Proposal to democratize aspects of the governance of the InternationalCode of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plantsGideon F. Smith,1 Estrela Figueiredo,1 Gerry Moore,2 Leslie R. Landrum,3 Roy E. Gereau,4 Jefferson Prado,5Sebsebe Demissew,6 Wendy Applequist,4 Alejandro Quintanar,7 Renée Fortunato,8 Alina Freire-Fierro,9,10Jun Wen11 & Yun-Fei Deng121 Ria Olivier Herbarium, Department of Botany, Nelson Mandela University, P.O. Box 77000, Gqeberha, 6031 South Africa2 National Plant Data Team, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 2901 East GateCity Blvd., Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S.A.3 Natural History Collections, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-4108, U.S.A.4 Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri 63110-2291, U.S.A.5 Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais (IPA), Herbário SP, Av. Miguel Estéfano, 3687, 04301-012, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil6 National Herbarium, Department of Plant Biology and Biodiversity Management, College of Natural Sciences, Addis AbabaUniversity, P.O. Box 3434, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia7 Herbarium MA, Unidad de Herbarios, Real Jardín Botánico de Madrid CSIC, 28014 Madrid, Spain8 Instituto de Botánica Darwinion (CONICET/ANCEFYN), Labardén 200, Casilla de Correo 22, B1642HYD San Isidro, Buenos Aires,Argentina9 CAS President’s International Fellowship Initiative, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.723, XingkeRoad, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510650, China10 Universidad Regional Amazónica Ikiam, Via a Muyuna km 7, Tena, Ecuador11 Department of Botany, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, U.S.A.12 Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academyof Sciences, No.723, Xingke Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510650, ChinaAddress for correspondence: Gideon F. Smith, smithgideon1@gmail.comDOI https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12855First published as part of this issue. See online for details.The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, andplants (Code) specifies that the approval of the General Committee(GC) of certain proposals (for conservation or rejection of a nameor for suppression of a publication) is “subject to the decision of alater International Botanical Congress” (Turland & al. in RegnumVeg. 159: Art. 14.15, 34.2, 56.3; see also Art. 38.4, 53.4. 2018).The governance mechanisms included in Division III of the Codewere discussed by the Special Committee on By-laws for the Nomen-clature Section (By-laws Committee) in the years prior to the Nomen-clature Section (NS) held in July 2017 at the XIX InternationalBotanical Congress (IBC) in Shenzhen, China. The By-lawsCommittee’s discussions culminated in a proposal and report(Knapp & al. in Taxon 65: 661–664, 665–669. 2016) that substan-tially revised the governance of the Code.1344 Version of RecordSmith & al. • (193) Div. III TAXON 71 (6) • December 2022: 1344–1345 19968175, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tax.12855 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons LicenseOne of the most contentious issues discussed by the By-lawsCommittee was at what level the NS would accept the recommenda-tions of the GC. The By-laws Committee was deeply divided, withnine members supporting a supermajority (60%) to accept a GC rec-ommendation and eight supporting a supermajority (60%) to reject aGC recommendation, and finally settled on a simple majority (morethan 50%) to accept as a reasonable compromise. In addition, Knapp& al. (l.c.) proposed that: (1) when a report of the GC contains morethan one recommendation, the NS may vote separately on an individ-ual recommendation; (2) when a vote to approve a singled-out GCrecommendation does not achieve the proposed simple majority, thatGC recommendation is cancelled, and the matter is referred back tothe GC. Thus, every recommendation of the specialist committees(Div. III Prov. 7.1) and the GC and every decision of the NS wouldrequire at least a simple majority in favour, and would be a demo-cratic process.The proposal to amend the Code by Knapp & al. (l.c.) was ac-cepted by the NS with various amendments (Lindon & al. in Phyto-Keys 150: 213–228. 2020) and ratified the following week bythe closing plenary session of the IBC (Turland & al. in RegnumVeg. 159: x. 2018). One change that produced a less democraticoutcome than was originally proposed is: a 60% majority of theNS is required to reject a portion or portions of the report of theGC, thus allowing the recommendation of the GC to stand evenwhen a clear majority (50.1% to 59.9%) of the NS has votedagainst it.We here propose that democracy be established by enabling aNS to approve a GC report, in total, or as (a) singled outprovision(s), with a simple majority. This will help to foster confi-dence in the integrity of nomenclatural governance.(193) Amend Div. III Prov. 5 by rewording the current Prov. 5.1,5.2, and 5.4 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text instrikethrough):“5.1. A qualified majority (at least 60%) of votes cast is requiredfor the following decisions:(e) rejecting a singled-out recommendation of the General Com-mittee (see Prov. 5.3);(f) rejecting one or more recommendations of the General Com-mittee on conservation, protection, or rejection of names, suppres-sion of works, or binding decisions.”“5.2. A simple majority (more than 50%) of votes cast is re-quired for all other decisions, including the following:(g) accepting recommendations of the General Committee notincluded in Prov. 5.1(e) or (f);”“5.4. When a vote to reject accept a General Committee recom-mendation achieves does not achieve the required majority (Prov.5.1(e) or (f) 5.2(g)), that recommendation is cancelled and the matteris referred back to the General Committee. Retention or rejection of aname or suppression of a work is no longer authorized (Art. 14.15,56.3, and 34.2).”(194) Proposal to readdress the issue of whether or not the types of basionymsor replaced synonyms of conserved names with conserved types are themselvesconservedJohn H. WiersemaDepartment of Botany, NMNH - MRC 166, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C., 20013-7012, U.S.A.Address for correspondence: John H. Wiersema, wiersemaj@si.eduDOI https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12856First published as part of this issue. See online for details.Prior to the 2011 Melbourne Congress, the late esteemednomenclaturalist Gillian Perry (in Taxon 59: 1915–1916. 2010) dis-covered a previously overlooked issue threatening the perceivedhomotypy of some 30 names with conserved types and their basio-nyms then listed in Appendices III and IV of the Vienna Code(McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006). At that time, it may havesimply been assumed that the basionym of a conserved name was au-tomatically homotypic with the conserved name. But for this toremain true when the conserved name was explicitly conserved witha conserved type, the basionymwould have to be explicitly conservedsimilarly. Because 28 of the 30 cases Perry (l.c.) mentioned involvedbasionyms that applied to subdivisions of genera (App. III) or infra-specific taxa (App. IV), which lacked any provision for their conser-vation under the Vienna Code, she submitted Proposal 243 to remedythis situation, which upon its approval inMelbourne gave rise to mostof the final sentence of current Art. 14.1 (“The name of a subdivisionof a genus or of an infraspecific taxon may be conserved with a con-served type and listed in App. III and IV, respectively, when it is thebasionym or replaced synonym of a name of a genus or species thatcould not continue to be used in its current sense without conserva-tion”; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). The bolded textwas added to this Article with acceptance of Proposal 234 (Wiersema& al. in Taxon 65: 642–646. 2016) at the Shenzhen Congress.Perry astutely recognized that while acceptance of her Proposal243 would provide a future mechanism for ensuring correspon-dence between listed types of names with conserved types in App.III and IV and those of their basionyms, when these could then beexplicitly conserved as such, it could not address the already exist-ing incongruency of types resulting from strict application of thenArt. 14, where the listed basionyms (at the same rank) had not been,Version of Record 1345TAXON 71 (6) • December 2022: 1345–1346 Wiersema • (194) App. III 19968175, 2022, 6, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tax.12855 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [01/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

(193) Proposal to democratize aspects of the governance of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/296275/1/TAXON%20-%202022%20-%20Smith%20-%20193%20%20Proposal%20to%20democratize%20aspects%20of%20the%20governance%20of%20the%20International%20Code%20of%20Nomenclature%20for.pdf

(193) Proposal to democratize aspects of the governance of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital.CSIC