Pakshirajan Lakshminarasimhan

(012–013) Proposals to add two new paragraphs to Rec. 40A and Rec. 9D

Recommendation 40A.3 states “Specification of the herbarium or collection or institution of deposition (see Art. 40 Note 4) should be followed by any available number permanently identifying the holotype specimen (see also Rec. 9D.1).” This is indeed a very useful Recommendation included in the Code for identifying a holotype specimen unambiguously. However, the barcoding of herbarium sheets has not yet started in many herbaria worldwide, while in some others barcoding is ongoing. We are therefore proposing here another Recommendation to help unambiguously identify the holotype specimen.

014) Proposal to amend Rec. 31B.1

Concerning compliance with Art. 40.7, i.e., specifying the herbarium or collection or institution in which a type is conserved, Art. 40 Note 4 states “Specification of the herbarium or collection or institution may be made in an abbreviated form, e.g. as given in Index herbariorum, part I, or in the World directory of collections of cultures of microorganisms.” In addition, Rec. 40A.4 states “Citation of the herbarium or collection or institution of deposition should use one of the standards mentioned in Art. 40 Note 4.” However, it sometimes happens that authors specify the herbarium in an abbreviated form even when no such form is given in Index herbariorum, part I. We feel that in such cases the authors should give the full name of the herbarium or collection or institution, with the location, in order to be precise and to avoid confusion. () Add a new paragraph to Rec. A: “40A.5. Citation of the herbarium or collection or institution of deposition should be in full, with the location, when no abbreviated form is given by one of the standards mentioned in Art. 40 Note 4.”

011) Proposal to add a new Recommendation to Rec. 30A

At the XVIII International Botanical Congress, Melbourne (2011), electronic effective publication of all nomenclatural acts was permitted from 1 January 2012 subject to certain requirements, as mentioned in Art. 29.1. Since then, many electronic publications have appeared, but some of the published articles have restricted access to readers. We feel that nomenclatural novelties, if published in articles with restricted access, are unlikely to reach readers easily. We are therefore proposing a new Recommendation, as follows: () Insert a new Rec. A.: “30A.5. Authors publishing nomenclatural novelties should give preference to electronic publications with open or free access to readers.” This new Recommendation, if followed, would be helpful to make nomenclatural novelties easily available to readers.