Gerry Moore

A COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND PHYLOGENETIC NOMENCLATURE

The traditional method of biological nomenclature and the phylogenetic nomenclature method are reviewed. Under a phylogenetic nomenclature, ranks would not be required, and names of taxa would be given definitions based on descent. The phylogenetic nomenclature method, as currently proposed, would be in conflict, not only with the Linnaean hierarchy, but also with the notion of nomenclatural types. While the phylogenetic method would increase explicitness and universality regarding the application of names, it may do so at the expense of taxonomic flexibility and circumscriptional stability of a taxon represented by a given name. Suggestions are provided on how a code of nomenclature could be designed so as to accommodate both systems.

The concurrent decline of the native Celastrus scandens and spread of the non-native Celastrus orbiculatus in the New York City metropolitan area

STEWARD, A. M., S. E. CLEMANTS, AND G. MOORE (Brooklyn Botanic Garden, 1000 Washington Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11225-1099). The concurrent decline of the native Celastrus scandens and spread of the nonnative Celastrus orbiculatus in the New York City Metropolitan area. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 130: 142-145. 2003.Before 1950, native Celastrus scandens (American bittersweet) was rather common in the New York Metropolitan area. Celastrus orbiculatus (Oriental bittersweet) was introduced into the region in the late 1800s. Analyses of the distribution of both species since the time of the introduction of C. scandens into the flora indicate that the native C. scandens has declined considerably, while the non-native C. orbiculatus has significantly spread and increased in abundance. Possible reasons for the concomitant decline of C. scandens and spread of C. orbiculatus are discussed. In the New York Metropolitan area, Celastrus orbiculatus Thunb. (Oriental bittersweet) is a commonly occurring weed, whereas the native Celastrus scandens L. (American bittersweet) occurs occasionally. Prior to introduction of C. orbiculatus, C. scandens was widespread in the area. We documented the changing distribution of both species in the New York Metropolitan area from the early 1800s through the present. We suggest several factors that may have contributed to the decline of C. scandens and the

A review of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature with respect to its compatibility with phylogenetic classification

3 Hunt Institute.for Botanical Documentation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, U.S.A. rkiger@andrew.cmu.edu 4 Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U.K. jmcneill@rbge.org.uk 5 Brooklyn Botanic Garden, 1000 Washington Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11225, U.S.A. gerrymoore@bbg. org (author for correspondence) 6 The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York 10458 U.S.A. dws@nybg.org 7Division of Environmental Biology, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, U.S.A. qwheeler@nsfgov

Vascular flora of Caumsett State Historic Park, Lloyd Neck, Long Island, New York, with notes on the vegetation1

Abstract Greller, A.M. (Department of Biology, Queens College, CUNY, Flushing, NY 11367; and Department of Science, Brooklyn Botanic Garden, 1000 Washington Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11225), G. E. Lotowycz (Planting Fields Herbarium and Library, Planting Fields Arboretum, P.O. Box 58, Oyster Bay, NY 11771), G. Moore (Department of Science, Brooklyn Botanic Garden, 1000 Washington Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11225), E. Lamont (New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458), H. Binger (Department of Biology, Queens College, CUNY, Flushing, NY 11367), B. Conolly (Long Island Botanical Society, P.O. Box 507, Aquebogue, NY 11931), V. Dankel (Department of Biology, Queens College, CUNY, Flushing, NY 11367), J. Hoar (Caumsett Foundation, Caumsett State Park, Lloyd harbor, Huntington, NY 11743), C. Johnston (Planting Fields Herbarium and Library, Planting Fields Arboretum, P.O. Box 58, Oyster Bay, NY 11771), A. Mangiacapre (Department of Biology, Queens College, CUNY, Flushing, NY 11367), J. Schmidt (Department of Biology, Queens College, CUNY, Flushing, NY 11367), L. Zimmerman (Department of Biology, Queens College, CUNY, Flushing, NY 11367), V. Luisi (Department of Biology, Queens College, CUNY, Flushing, NY 11367), B. Quigley (Department of Biology, Queens College, CUNY, Flushing, NY 11367), M. L. Lamont (Long Island Botanical Society, P.O. Box 507, Aquebogue, NY 11931), and S. E. Clemants (Department of Science, Brooklyn Botanic Garden, 1000 Washington Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11225). Vascular Flora of Caumsett State Park, Lloyd Neck, Long Island, New York, with notes on the vegetation. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 132: 149–168. 2005.—Caumsett State Historic Park (CSHP) is a 650 ha tract, 50 km east of New York City, New York. The vascular flora comprises 101 families, 330 genera, and 624 species, of which 405 species (65%) are native and 219 species (35%) are exotic to CSHP. Flowering plants (Division Magnoliophyta) form the bulk of the flora. Magnoliopsida (dicots) account for most of the angiosperm families, genera, and species. Liliopsida (monocots) scarcely account for more than 20% in any category. Pinophyta (conifers) are rare, as are the Lycopodiophyta and Equisetophyta (“fern allies”). Polypodiophyta (ferns) equal all the other non-angiosperm groups, at all taxonomic levels. The most species rich families are Asteraceae, Poaceae, Rosaceae, Fabaceae, Cyperaceae, Liliaceae, Lamiaceae and Brassicaceae, in that order. The largest genera are Carex, Aster, Solidago/Euthamia, Polygonum, and Hieracium, in that order. Eleven CSHP species are listed as endangered or threatened in New York State (NYS; Young and Weldy 2003). These are Carex abscondita, C. hormathodes, Cenchrus tribuloides, Scirpus georgianus, S. maritimus, Acalypha virginica var. virginica, Lycopus rubellus, Lysimachia hybrida, Physalis pubescens var. integrifolia, Salicornia bigelovii, Suaeda linearis. Two species, Ligustrum ovalifolium and Vicia lathyroides are new to the flora of NYS. Five classes of habitats are found within the park, each with many types of plant communities. These are I. upland forests, mature forest and also extensive areas undergoing succession; II. freshwater swamps, marshes and ponds, dominated by flood tolerant trees, shrubs, forbs or graminoids; III. gravel and sand deposits, dominated by drought tolerant shrubs, forbs and grasses; IV. tidal wetlands, dominated by salt tolerant grasses, shrubs and, locally, forbs; and V. disturbed habitats, mainly lawns and dry meadows, dominated by grasses and composites.

(286) Proposal to replace division iii of the international code of nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

Special Committee on By-laws for the Nomenclature Section Members of the Special Committee: Sandra Knapp (Secretary),1 Nicholas J. Turland (Convener),2 Mary E. Barkworth,3 Fred R. Barrie,4 Renée H. Fortunato,5 Kanchi Gandhi,6 Roy E. Gereau,7 Werner Greuter,8 Patrick S. Herendeen,9 Leslie R. Landrum,10 David J. Mabberley,11 Karol Marhold,12 Tom W. May,13 Gerry Moore,14 Lourdes Rico Arce,15 Gideon F. Smith,16 Kevin Thiele17 & Li Zhang18

Report of the special committee on by-laws for the nomenclature section

The Special Committee on By-laws for the Nomenclature Section was established at the XVIII International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Melbourne in 2011, with the mandate to formalize the procedures by which changes to the Code are considered and voted upon by the Nomenclature Section, and to report to the XIX IBC in Shenzhen in 2017. With the wider participation of the community in nomenclature in general, and to address some past contentious issues in particular, the need for a clearer set of rules for management of the Nomenclature Section had surfaced. In light of this, the Committee conducted extensive negotiations and discussions on a wide range of governance topics, which are here summarized in the Committee’s report. We propose the adoption of a new and greatly expanded version of Division III of the Code. This report provides the supporting documentation for the proposal that is also published in this issue (Knapp & al. in Taxon 65: 661–664. 2016). It is necessary that the two documents be read alongside each other.

Increasing nomenclatural stability by preventing the introduction of long-forgotten names that will compete with ones in use: A solution must be found, and soon

The recording of previously undetected or overlooked, effectively and validly published names from long-forgotten literature, their absorption into datasets, such as the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) and Tropicos, widely accessible electronically through the worldwide web, and subsequent adoption as accepted names in the literature, have an undeniably destabilizing impact on plant nomenclature. It is critically important that a way be found soon to prevent such names, which are sometimes, but not always, laboriously proposed for rejection from disrupting the stability of the names in use for organisms covered by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. For effect to be given to such a preventative system, the establishment and formal recognition of a designated online database of names of families, genera, and species published up to 1970 for vascular plants is of the utmost importance. One way to institute such a system would be to make the inclusion, on a specific date, of a plant name in that database—we propose IPNI—a condition for valid publication for names that are retrieved from literature published prior to 1 January 1970. We argue that this system, based on IPNI 2020, should be implemented on 1 January 2020. Until then the work being done to sanitize existing indices of plant names must continue