Search

The possibility that the genus Cannabis (Cannabaceae) comprises more than one species, as believed by Zhukovsky (1962) and other Russian botanists and as noted by Tutin et al. in Flora Europaea 1 : 67 (1964), or consists of one variable species divisible on fruit characters into several subspecies with differing chemical properties, has made it essential to examine the typification of the name Cannabis sativa so as to remove in advance any nomenclatural uncertainty which may otherwise come about if, for taxonomie reasons, the Linnaean epithet sativa has to be restricted to one member of the group. The name Cannabis sativa L. , having been published by Carl Linnaeus in his Species Plantarum 2 : 1027 (1753), the internationally accepted starting point for modern botanical nomenclature, is the first legitimate scientific name for the hemp which was grown in Europe in the 18th Century. Here it had been extensively cultivated for many centuries, as is evident from both historical and palynological evidence (summarized by H. Godwin in 1967), being grown primarily for its tough fibres providing cordage and clothing but also for its oily seeds ; fortunately, during the period of its maximum use in Europe, the narcotic properties of its resin were unknown there.

Changes in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature approved at the Seattle (1969) Congress affecting autonyms (automatically established names) are considered to have been retrograde steps. Proposals are made to reverse these decisions, thus again allowing autonyms to be considered for purposes of priority, and requiring autonyms to be used for all names of taxa at infraspecific, infrageneric and infrafamilial rank which include the type of the correct name of the next higher taxon (except for subsections and lower infrageneric ranks previously already excluded from this requirement). A proposal is also made that the word 'autonym' should be more clearly defined. The term "autonym" has been introduced into the latest edition of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (1972) for names automatically established by the publication of a different name. The example quoted is Lycopodium inundatum var. inundatum, which was automatically established by the publication of L. inundatum var. bigelovii. This new term seems to be useful and could simplify nomenclatural discussions, though we point out below that its exact definition may need amendment to avoid ambiguity. At the same time, however, two important changes in connection with such names have appeared in the 1972 Code which seem to us to be somewhat serious retrograde steps. These are the introduction of two new rulings, firstly that autonyms are not to be taken into consideration for purposes of priority, and secondly that in certain circumstances (in addition to names of subsections and lower infrageneric ranks already referred to in Art. 22, line 1) autonyms should not necessarily be used for taxa which include the type of the correct name of the next higher taxon. In our opinion these are undesirable reversals of well established practice, resulting in many names which were when published being now retrospectively made incorrect, and enforcing adoption of names often undesirable from a practical point of view. Although it would aopear from the Report on Botanical Nomenclature, Seattle, 1969, (Regnum Vegetabile 81), pp. 47-58, that the first of the two issues was the subject of protracted discussion at the Seattle Congress (which we were unfortunately unable to attend), the second seems to have stimulated no discussion at all. In neither issue does it seem to us that the practical effects of the new changes have been fully appreciated, and we have been urged by colleagues to raise both issues again for possible reconsideration at the Leningrad Congress. Similar dissatisfaction has already been expressed by L. K. Weresub in Taxon 19(5): 787-788 (1970), who has also recommended reconsideration of both problems. Although we feel that it is now too late for botanists to adopt the principle of co-ordinate status of names at different ranks, Dr. Weresub's comments are very pertinent and should be read in conjunction with our own comments here. We appreciate that, other things being equal, stability of the Code is a desirable end in itself and proposals to the next Congress immediately to nullify actions taken at the last Congress may be controversial. Nonetheless, we feel strongly that two bad decisions were taken at Seattle and that now is the time to correct them. It seems to us that nearly everybody was happy with the rules on autonyms in the previous Code, and the changes introduced at Seattle will be widely regretted. We hope that the Leningrad Congress will revert to the position on autonyms which had become familiar over the previous 20 years rather than leave us with the unfortunate rulings which have been inflicted on us in the 1972 Code.

The revision of the Naucleeae for the Malesian flora entailed, besides a taxonomic survey, nomenclatural evaluation and typification of the genera. Unfortunately there has been a great deal of confusion, since the time of Linnaeus's Species Plantarum, as the material then available was extremely scrappy and the nature of the head-like inflorescences in this group were not properly understood. Hence these plants were all lumped under a few generic names such as Nauclea, Cephalanthus, and Sarcocephalus. Merrill correctly pointed out in 1917 that the evaluation by Haviland (1897) in his monograph of Malesian Naucleeae was incorrect; but, again, a closer study of the conclusions reached by Merrill, who was mainly concerned with the nomenclature and systematics of Nauclea versus Sarcocephalus, cannot be fully approved. The situation is extremely complicated. I have tried to cover all generic names involved and have reached the conclusion that

At the same time it must be recognized that an appreciable segment of our world fraternity of taxonomists is understandably unfamiliar with the functioning of numbering systems, and lacks knowledge of the function and place of punched cards in working such a system. Punched cards of several types are accepted in many facets of biological activity. They are used in taxonomic centers in this country by some monographers in sorting out taxa within a genus and in determining validity of characters in preparing keys for identification purposes. At the same time it is recognized that many taxonomists, anxious to comprehend what this is all about and how to apply it to their work, have asked for a simple presentation of the subject of numbering systems and their integration with punched cards, expressed in application to their own efforts. Some have suspected that existing gaps in information on botanical nomenclature might be quickly filled by the use of such systems, and have wondered how this could be done. Others were sure that by applications of these modern methods, taxonomic information could become readily accessible, and after the labor of building it up to the present, could be kept up-to-date with a minimum of time and effort and a maximum of accuracy. Certainly these are functions to be filled by a carefully planned numbering system in connection with the use of punched cards.

It is proposed that the Code of Botanical Nomenclature should include a provision that where a species of fossils is assigned to an extant genus, the diagnosis of that genus should be deliberately emended to include a time-range circumscription, adequately substantiated. The inclusion of the "special provisions concerning fossil plants" into the body of the Montreal (1961) Code of Botanical Nomenclature was an important advance. These provisions have as yet only been distributed by the editors, and have not really been digested, as is illustrated by the slightly imperfect wording of Art. 3, Note 1 on form-genera. The inclusion of fossil plants has scarcely begun to have the effect it should and will have on the

In the discussions of the botanical nomenclature at the Rochester meeting of the American Association there was a decided feeling upon the part of many that more exact data were requisite to any satisfactory action. A series of rules was provisionally adopted and it was wisely urged that before the merits of the code could be estimated it would be necessary to see its application to some considerable part of our flora. Prof. Britton,at much expense of time and trouble, with the assistance of some others, has prepared under the above title a list of the flowering plants of the eastern states and Canada, selecting the names according to the Rochester code and its modification at Madison. This list possesses considerable interest, as it contains the expression of the latest phase of nomenclature reform in America and affords a much more satisfactory basis for the decision of the questions at issue than has hitherto been gained from vague generalizations and isolated instances. In estimating the system of nomenclature illustrated by this list all considerations of sentiment may be passed with brief mention. It is natural that every working botanist should greatly regret giving up names long associated with certain plants, but there would certainly be few who would not make all due concession in this regard if really assured of a stable nomenclature as a reward of their sacrifices. Before leaving the matter of sentiment, however, it may be noted that it has not been confined to the conservative botanist, who regrets the proposed displacement of established names. It is equally exhibited by the reforming botanist, who maintains that he is impelled to make these changes by justice to the earlier authors. For slight examination shows that this idea of justice is often of the sentimental rather than the practical sort. The revival of old and obscure names undoes in many instances the most careful work of subsequent authors, and this, too, from no fault of theirs, for the rules affecting their

ARTICLE 9 of the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature2 provides that "the rules and recommendations of botanical nomenclature apply to all classes of the plant kingdom, recent and fossil, with certain distinctly specified exceptions." However, examination of the Rules soon reveals that certain important aspects of the nomenclature of fossil plants are not yet covered by specific articles and recommendations. To remedy this condition, several sets of new proposals have been advanced, notably those by Jongmans, Halle, and Gothan,3 those by British paleobotanists,4 and those recently formulated by American paleobotanists. These three groups of proposals are representative of the opinions held by many paleobotanists, whereas the proposals of Dubois-Ladurantie and Gaussen5 and Hylander6 are the outgrowths of individual efforts to resolve the existing difficulties. Although these sets of proposals differ in various ways from one another and the Rules, most of them prove that the existing framework of the latter is capable of expansion and correction to cover paleobotanical nomenclature. As the actual proposals either have been published, or, like the American proposals, are to be published in the near future, the main part of the following discussion will deal with the more important aspects of paleobotanical nomenclature represented by the latter. A brief comment regarding the American Committee on Paleobotanical Nomenclature may here be in order. Founded shortly before the war,7 and hampered at first by it, the original Committee was replaced by the present one in March, 1947. The Droposals received and acted upon by the present 1 For their active participation, either in formulating proposals or by critical reading of the manuscript, the author is greatly indebted to Dr. E. E. Sherff, Chairman of the Symposium; Dr. W. H. Camp, Chairman of the Committee on Nomenclature, American Society of Plant Taxonomists; to the members of the Committee on Paleobotanical Nomenclature, Drs. J. H. Johnson, H. L. Mason, and N. W. Radforth; and to several colleagues, especially Drs. J. M. Schopf, H. N. Andrews, Jr., and C. A. Arnold. 2 Bisby, G. R. An Introduction to the Taxonomy and Nomenclature of Fungi. Kew. 1945. Camp, W. H., H. W. Rickett, and C. A. Weatherby. International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. Brittonia 6: 1-120. 1947. 3 Jongmans, W., T. G. Halle, and W. Gothan. Proposed Additions to the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. Adopted by the Fifth International Botanical Congress Cambridge 1930. Heerlen. 1935. 4 Thomas, H. H. Proposed Additions to the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. Suggested by British Paleobotanists. Jour. Bot. 73: 111-113. 1935. 5 Dubois-Ladurantie, G., et H. Gaussen. Projet de Nomenclature Paleobotanique. Bull. Soc. d'Hist. Nat. Toulouse 76:289-295. 1941. 6 Hylander, Nils. International Rules of Scientific Botanical Nomenclature-A New Proposal. 1948. 7 Schopf, J. M. American Committee on Paleobotanical Nomenclature. Chronica Botanica 7: 226-227. 1942. Committee will be published, together with those submitted to the Committee on Nomenclature of the American Society of Plant Taxonomists.8 The resulting publication will contain the complete text of all proposals and the accompanying arguments, together with the names of the respective authors. As a group, the American paleobotanical proposals readily reflect the spirit of the Rules. For, if adopted, they are likely to effect the least number of nomenclatural changes toward the eventual stabilization of paleobotanical nomenclature. EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY.The recent discovery in China of a living Metasequoia,9 quickly resulted in a new proposal badly needed for the selection of types, if names of related living and fossil plants are involved.10 Its published version has just been modified bv its author and as such approved by the two American committees mentioned above. It now reads as follows: "Names based on types derived from modern material always take nomenclatural precedence over names permanently attached to specimens of fossil or subfossil character." The reason for this proposal, its bearing on similar cases, and possible implications for future paleobotanical discoveries have been stated by its author and need not be detailed again. It is interesting to note, however, that no similar proposal has been incorporated among the various recommendations by European paleobotanists. Although this proposal would actually sanction occasional departures from the principle of priority as stipulated in the Rules, such instances are not likely to be very numerous. In fact, the number of exceptions to the consistent application of the principle of priority resulting from the adoption of this proposal will be small compared with the many names bound to appear on the projected list of nomina generica conservanda of fossil plants. An objection concerns the possibility of confusion arising from the converse application of the names of fossil plants to living plants. Although this problem exists, it is not very serious. According to art. 61, names of fossil plants applied to living

The professional forester is not so much concerned with pure taxonomy as with applied taxonomy. He has consequently tended to regard the rules of botanical nomenclature as falling outside his province and has usually left the field of pure taxonomy to the botanist. The forester's main objects have been to avoid ambiguity in nomenclature and confusion in his records, so that he requires that each kind of tree should bear a name which is universally applicable from the scientific and legal point of view and that nomenclature should acquire stability. In recent years, however, he has been called upon to accept so many changes in familiar names that he may be forgiven for wondering whether either object is feasible of attainment. It is with the purpose of demonstrating that the botanist is fully alive to the requirements of the forester and has his interests at heart that we present the following popular account of the steps the botanist has taken to secure the universal applicability and eventual stability o...

15-26. SOPER, J. H. and F. H. PERRING. 1967 Data processing in the herbarium and museum. Taxon 16(1): 13-18. SQUIRES, D. F. 1966 Data processing and museum collections. A problem for the present. Curator 9(3): 216-227. STAFLEU, F. A. 1966 Authors, taxa, names and computers. Taxon 15(3): 109-114. STEELE, R. G. D. and J. H. TORRIE. 1960 Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGrawHill, New York. THRCCKMCRTON, T. D. 1966 King Alfred and Form No. 1040. The American Horticultural Magazine 45(2): 245-251. *WooD, C. E., JR., R. S. COWAN and G. BUCHHEIM. 1963 Botanical nomenclature, punched cards and machines. Taxon 12: 2-12. *YCCHELSON, E. 1966 Nomenclature in the machine age. Syst. Zool. 15(1): 88-91.

Some six years ago, it was correctly pointed out by Brèthes (Bull. Soc. Ent. de France, 1914, p. 59) that the generic designation Diatomineura, Round. (Archiv. Zool. Anat. Fisiol. iii, p. 84, 1864), is a synonym of Osca, Walk., (Ins. Saund., Diptera, Part i, p. 10, 1850—nec Walk., 1864, nec Sta;l, 1871). The first species mentioned by both Walker and Rondani is Pangonia depressa, Macq. (=Erephopsis lata (Tabanus latus), Guér.), and this species is designated by Brè as the genotype. Erephopsis lata, Guér., of Kertész’s Catalogus Dipterorum (iii, p. 165, 1908), must therefore be known henceforth as Osca lata, Guér., and the South African Tabanus barbatus, L. (Pangonia barbata, Auct.), and Pangonia fulvifascia, Walk., must be transferred to the genus Osca.

SUMMARY The aim of this paper is to provide a catalogue of the family names of Pteridophytes in order to extend to this division the list of Nomina B'amiliarum Conservanda (Appendix II of the Code of Botanical Nomenclature) now limited to the Spermatophytes. A nomenclatural revision of the families of the living Pteridophytes has been carried out; this research has shown that the number of the family names amounts to 129; of them 76 are validly published, 53 are invalid. The catalogue is preceded by an introduction in which the application of some rules of nomenclature (Art. 18, 33, 49, 61) is discussed and the guiding principles in the compilation of the catalogue are outlined. The family names are subdivided into two categories: 1) family names validly published, whether legitimate or not; 2) family names not validly published. The former are more exhaustively treated and for each family the author, the bibliographical citation and type are supplied. Additional information is given on the circumscriptio...

PROBABLY NOT in the entire field of botanical taxonomy and plant nomenclature is greater confusion to be found than now exists around the plants represented by the names Zephyranthes gracilis Herb., Z. minima Herb., Z. Hieronymi Pax and Amaryllis parvula Seub. Several attempts have been made to straighten out the identity of these plants but so far the problem has not been elucidated. This may be because no one has gone back to original type material and compared the different forms. Errors have crept in and these have been repeated by subsequentwriters. Moreover, the study of this genus is difficult because much of the herbarium material is of extremely poor quality. Often it is prepared under difficult conditions, and unless there is a combination of knowledge and care in drying and pressing specimens of Zephyranthes, the results are not likely to be satisfactory. Much of the material in different herbaria today is worthless. In no group of plants is the study of freshly opened flowers more important or more necessary. Characters can be made out in fresh flowers that are difficult to find in dried ones, but when once seen in the fresh state they can be found in the herbarium specimens. Holmberg (1905), the most recent writer to publiA on certain of the species of Zephyranthes involved in the mix-up, pointed out the absurd confusion, although he made no attempt to elucidate the problem. He was writing on the Zephyranthes native to, or introduced into, Argentina and was not concerned with those growing elsewhere. He said,2 "Con las especies Z. gracilis y Z. minima se ha hecho un enredo. Walpers sefiala, como sinonimo probable de Z. gracilis, Z. parvula. Kunth presenta Z. parvula como sinonimo probable de Z. gracilis. Grisebach acepta esto como un hecho, y sefiala Z. parvula en vez de Z. gracilis, pasando este nombre previo a' ser sinonimo. Baker nos da Z. parvula, Seub., como sinonimo de Z. minima, n. 14, y, al tratar de Z. gracilis, n. 13, se lava las manos y no dice una palabra; indica como patria <

A review of the main results of the discussions on botanical nomenclature at the Eleventh International Botanical Congress at Seattle, 22-24 August 1969. The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature remains practically unchanged. Minor amendments include a restriction of the phenomenon of 'automatically created tautonyms' (to be called autonyms), a further precision of the rules concerning names of hybrids, and a loosening of the rule governing superfluous names.