Nicholas J. Turland

Biological nomenclature terms for facilitating communication in the naming of organisms.

Abstract A set of terms recommended for use in facilitating communication in biological nomenclature is presented as a table showing broadly equivalent terms used in the traditional Codes of nomenclature. These terms are intended to help those engaged in naming across organism groups, and are the result of the work of the International Committee on Bionomenclature, whose aim is to promote harmonisation and communication amongst those naming life on Earth.

Changes to publication requirements made at the XVIII International Botanical Congress in Melbourne - what does e-publication mean for you?

Abstract Changes to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are decided on every 6 years at Nomenclature Sections associated with International Botanical Congresses (IBC). The XVIII IBC was held in Melbourne, Australia; the Nomenclature Section met on 18-22 July 2011 and its decisions were accepted by the Congress at its plenary session on 30 July. Several important changes were made to the Code as a result of this meeting that will affect publication of new names. Two of these changes will come into effect on 1 January 2012, some months before the Melbourne Code is published. Electronic material published online in Portable Document Format (PDF) with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) will constitute effective publication, and the requirement for a Latin description or diagnosis for names of new taxa will be changed to a requirement for a description or diagnosis in either Latin or English. In addition, effective from 1 January 2013, new names of organisms treated as fungi must, in order to be validly published, include in the protologue (everything associated with a name at its valid publication) the citation of an identifier issued by a recognized repository (such as MycoBank). Draft text of the new articles dealing with electronic publication is provided and best practice is outlined. To encourage dissemination of the changes made to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, this article will be published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, Brittonia, Cladistics, MycoKeys, Mycotaxon, New Phytologist, North American Fungi, Novon, Opuscula Philolichenum, PhytoKeys, Phytoneuron, Phytotaxa, Plant Diversity and Resources, Systematic Botany and Taxon.

XIX International Botanical Congress: Report of Congress action on nomenclature proposals

1 Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Str. 6–8, 14195 Berlin, Germany 2 United States Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service, National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Bldg. 003, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC-West), Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350, U.S.A. 3 Australian National Herbarium, Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research, GPO Box 1700, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia 4 Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, P. R. China 5 Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Southern Subtropical Plant Diversity, Fairy Lake Botanical Garden, Shenzhen 518004, Guangdong, P.R. China Author for correspondence: Nicholas J. Turland, n.turland@bgbm.org

Fungal Nomenclature at IMC10: Report of the Nomenclature Sessions.

Three Nomenclature Sessions were convened during the 10th International Mycological Congress (IMC10) in Bangkok on 3–8 August 2014. In addition a Questionnaire was given to all delegates. This Report reviews and summarizes the views expressed in the Sessions and in the responses to the Questionnaire. The issues covered related to aspects of: registration, protected names, forgotten names, pleomorphic fungi, lichenized fungi, typification, diagnoses, and governance. In addition, reports were received from working groups preparing lists of names to be proposed for protection, and controversial cases of competing names were discussed. The Congress was mandated to ratify decisions of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF) on the appointment of repositories for the registration of new fungal names. After discussion in the Sessions on the decision of the NCF to appoint three such bodies, a Resolution to that effect was approved by the Congress. The Congress also adopted a Resolution asking that the opinions of mycologists on future directions for the nomenclature of fungi be taken into account in formulating changes in the rules for consideration at the International Botanical Congress in 2017.

Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on Chinese Silene (Caryophyllaceae)

A revision of the Chinese species of Silene L. for the forthcoming account of that genus in the Flora of China, Volume 6, necessitates publication of the following two new combinations, one new rank, one replacement name, and three new species: Silene davidii (Franchet) Oxelman & Lid6n, comb. nov., S. kialensis (F. N. Williams) Lid6n & Oxelman, comb. nov., S. herbilegorum (Bocquet) Lid6n & Oxelman, stat. nov., S. principis Oxelman & Lid n, nom. nov., S. sveae Lid6n & Oxelman, sp. nov., S. tubulosa Oxelman & Lid6n, sp. nov., and S. tibetica Lid6n & Oxelman, sp. nov.

Report on botanical nomenclature—Melbourne 2011. XVIII International Botanical Congress, Melbourne: Nomenclature Section, 18–22 July 2011

This is the official Report on the deliberations and decisions of the ten sessions of the Nomenclature Section of the XVIII International Botanical Congress held in Melbourne, Australia, in July 2011. The Section took place on five consecutive days prior to the Congress proper. The Section meetings were hosted by the School of Botany at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Technical facilities included full electronic recording of all discussion spoken into the microphones as well as a series of screen shots capturing what was displayed via computers on the overhead screens. Text of all proposals to amend the Code was displayed on one screen, while the relevant text of the Code itself was displayed on another screen allowing suggested amendments to be updated as appropriate. There was a strong female presence in leadership positions, despite the ratio of registered members still being skewed toward the male side (approx 33% of the registered members were women). The Section had the honour of being welcomed by the President of the Congress, Judy West, who was also a registered member of the Section and actively contributed to debate on the Acacia issue. The Secretary-General of the Congress, Karen Wilson, was very active during the entire Nomenclature Section, PhytoKeys 41: 1–289 (2014)

Changes to publication requirements made at the XVIII International Botanical Congress in Melbourne—what does e-publication mean for you?

Changes to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are decided on every 6 years at Nomenclature Sections associated with International Botanical Congresses (IBC). The XVIII IBC was held in Melbourne, Australia; the Nomenclature Section met on 18-22 July 2011 and its decisions were accepted by the Congress at its plenary session on 30 July. Several important changes were made to the Code as a result of this meeting that will affect publication of new names. Two of these changes will come into effect on 1 January 2012, some months before the Melbourne Code is published. Electronic material published online in Portable Document Format (PDF) with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) will constitute effective publication, and the requirement for a Latin description or diagnosis for names of new taxa will be changed to a requirement for a description or diagnosis in either Latin or English. In addition, effective from 1 January 2013, new names of organisms treated as fungi must, in order to be validly published, include in the protologue (everything associated with a name at its valid publication) the citation of an identifier issued by a recognized repository (such as MycoBank). Draft text of the new articles dealing with electronic publication is provided and best practice is outlined. To encourage dissemination of the changes made to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, this article will be published in Brittonia, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, BMC Evolutionary Biology, Cladistics, Mycotaxon, MycoKeys, New Phytologist, North American Fungi, Novon, Opuscula Philolichenum, PhytoKeys, Phytoneuron, Phytotaxa, Plant Diversity and Resources, Systematic Botany and Taxon .

Paeonia anomala subsp. veitchii (Paeoniaceae), a New Combination

A study of morphological characters of Paeonia veitchii Lynch, based on over 180 specimens, reveals that the following new combination is necessary: P anomala L. subsp. veitchii (Lynch) D. Y. Hong & K. Y. Pan, comb. et stat. nov. The name is also lectotypified. Three previously recognized varieties of P veitchii are here reduced to synonymy for the first time: P veitchii var. leiocarpa W. T. Wang & S. H. Wang ex K. Y. Pan, P. veitchii var. uniflora K. Y. Pan, and P woodwardii Stern & Cox.

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

1 Species 2000, Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, 2333 CR, The Netherlands 2 Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR, Scotland, UK; and Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto 3 Missouri Botanical Garden, P.O. Box 299, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-0299, USA (address for correspondence: Botany Department, The Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 S. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605, USA) 4 US National Herbarium, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA 5 Departamento de Biologia Vegetal II, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramon y Cajal, Madrid 28040, Spain; Department of Life Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK; and Mycology Section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3DS, UK 6 Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Konigin-Luise-Str. 6-8, 14195 Berlin, Germany 7 Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research, GPO Box 1600, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

Family name listings modified in Appendix IIB of the Saint Louis Code

Among the changes to the Code (Greuter & al., 2000) approved by the Nomenclature Section of the XVI International Botanical Congress (IBC) was the deletion of the footnote to Art. 14 Note 1 (Barrie & Greuter, 1999; see endnote 11). The footnote had a very brief history, having been added by the Nomenclature Section of the XV IBC in Yokohama to protect, temporarily, the family name entries in App. IIB (McNeill, 1993). By 1993, more than 100 examples of places of earlier valid publication for names listed in the Appendix had come to light. Without some action by the Section, the Editorial Committee would have been obligated to update these entries because, as Art. 14 Note 1 explains, a name cannot be conserved against itself. Unsure of the consequences of wholesale changes to App. IIB, the Nomenclature Section in Yokohama approved a motion by McNeill to retain, for the time being, the current authorship and places of publication for all entries (Greuter & al., 1994; see pp. 95-96, 241-243). Ultimately, McNeills motion became the footnote. In St. Louis, the section opted to delete the footnote. This, combined with the defeat of the proposals that would have authorised lists of protected names, commonly referred to as the Names in Current Use (NCU) proposals, eliminated the special protection for the bibliographic entries in App. IIB. (Greuter & al., 2000; see Session 8). The proposal to delete the footnote was offered from the floor by Reveal who, for the past decade, has been researching suprageneric names, their authorship and place of original publication. Much of his early work was in collaboration with the late Ruurd Hoogland. The two had compiled a list of those conserved family names for which the reference and often the authorship cited in App. IIB were arguably incorrect. The most recently published version of their list (Reveal, 1998) included 191 names. Reveal generously supplied the Editorial Committee with an electronic copy of his list. For this we offer him our sincere thanks; without his work, even a minimal updating App. IIB in time for publication with the Saint Louis Code would have been impossible.