XIX International Botanical Congress: Preliminary guiding mail vote on nomenclature proposals

Turland, Nicholas J.; Kempa, Matúš; Knapp, Sandra; Šenková, Eva; Wiersema, John H.

doi:10.12705/664.25

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The purpose of the guiding vote is to advise the Nomenclature Section of the IBC of the level of support for the proposals, and the results of the vote are made available to the Section (e.g. by publication in Taxon, see Turland & al., 2017a).…”

Section: January 2007mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Code Decoded

Turland¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The following methods of disseminating information do not constitute effective publication, with some rules taking effect only after certain dates: Printed matter• Printed matter that is not distributed, or that is distributed to scientific institutions without generally accessible libraries, or when only one copy is produced and "distributed" (and thereby failing to satisfy the minimum requirements of Art. 29.1).• Trade catalogues and non-scientific newspapers, except before 1953 (Art. 30.7).• Seed-exchange lists, except before 1973 (Art. 30.7).• Printed matter accompanying specimens (e.g. printed labels), except before 1953 or when distributed independently of the specimens (Art. 30.8 and Note 2).• University or college degree theses, with three exceptions: those before 1953; those in serial publications (e.g. Dissertationes Botanicae), and those that include an explicit statement or other evidence that the author or publisher considered the thesis to be effectively published under the Code (Art. 30.9). "Other evidence" could be an ISBN or the name of the printer, publisher, or distributor. Electronic material• Any kind of electronic material other than that specified in Art. 29, e.g. material distributed before 1 January 2012, material in format other than PDF, material not online, or material with neither an ISSN nor an ISBN (Art. 30.1).

show abstract

Section: January 2007mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Code Decoded

Turland¹

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Guiding Mail Vote for the International Botanical Congress has been a hard copy ballot, which for the last several Congresses could be mailed or submitted by electronic means such as fax or e-mail. For the 2011 Melbourne Congress 140 ballots were submitted, while for the 2017 Shenzhen Congress just 82 ballots were submitted (McNeill et al 2011, Turland et al 2017. Those eligible to participate in the Guiding Vote of the IBC are: (1) authors of proposals, (2) members of permanent nomenclature committees, and (3) members of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT).…”

Section: Comparison To Ibc Guiding Votementioning

confidence: 99%

International Mycological Congress: Guiding Vote on nomenclature proposals to amend Chapter F of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

May

Miller

2018

IMA Fungus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results are provided for the Guiding Vote on the seven formal proposals to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants to be decided by the Fungal Nomenclature Session (FNS) of the XI International Mycological Congress in July 2018. The ballot for the Guiding Vote was provided online. There were 520 valid ballots, submitted by mycologists from 42 countries, belonging to 23 eligible groups and societies, along with authors of proposals. Two proposals F-005 and F-006, both concerning DNA sequences as types, exceeded the 75 % No vote that is the threshold above which proposals are considered rejected by the FNS unless formally reintroduced. Two options for amendments to future procedures for the Guiding Vote are proposed: adding eligibility via publication of a nomenclatural novelty among fungi and removing eligibility via membership of IMA MMOs.

show abstract

On the nomenclature of the fossil‐genera Acitheca, Bifariusotheca, Polymorphopteris and Strephopteris (fossil Pteridophyta, Marattiopsida)

Doweld

2019

TAXON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The complicated nomenclatural history of the extinct fossil‐genera Acitheca and Strephopteris (fertile foliage) and Polymorphopteris (sterile foliage), established for fossil ferns (Marattiopsida), is reviewed and corrected with new bibliographic and historical data. Strephopteris as a generic name established for fertile foliage of Acitheca‐type has priority, but due to the long and widespread use of Acitheca it was recently proposed to reject it in favour of the established name Acitheca. Since Acitheca as a fossil‐genus was established for distinctive fertile foliage, but its currently accepted type, A. polymorpha (≡ Pecopteris polymorpha), was founded on sterile foliage, it is proposed to reject this type and return to the earlier concept of Sterzel who thought that Acitheca was typified by the fossil‐species Scolecopteris conspicua, based on fertile foliage. This procedure requires official conservation of the type. Correction of the type allows continuing the current use of another fossil‐genus, Polymorphopteris, which was inadvertently validated on the same type as Acitheca. The legitimization of the fossil‐genus Polymorphopteris, based on sterile foliage only, will stabilize the current established systematics of fossil marattiopsid remains, for which no fertile organs are known. Since Scolecopteris conspicua, when established as a fertile counterpart of sterile foliage known as Pecopteris polymorpha, originally included two unrelated archetypes of fertile foliage, known as compressions and petrifactions, the typification of the fossil‐species by fossil specimens known as compressions allows continued use of Acitheca as a distinct fossil‐genus for fertile foliage as compressions. The petrifactions formerly attributed to A. polymorpha from younger sediments (Lower Permian) of France are re‐considered as a distinct fossil‐species, Scolecopteris renaultii sp. nov. The formerly not validly published fossil‐genus Bifariusotheca for Acitheca‐like fossils from the Permian of China is validated. Kamatheca is validated for the aberrant Angaridan fossil‐species, Acitheca gigantea. Nine not validly published fossil‐species of Polymorphopteris are validated to follow modern circumscription of the fossil‐genus: Polymorphopteris cistii comb. nov., P. gothanii comb. nov., P. integra comb. nov., P. magdalenae sp. nov., P. multifurcata comb. nov., P. oblongifolia comb. nov., P. pseudobucklandii comb. nov., P. pseudointegra comb. nov., and P. wagneri sp. nov. Callipteridium subelegans and Scolecopteris conspicua are neotypified; Acitheca isomorpha and Pecopteris cistii are lectotypified. As an addition to Taxonomic literature II records, the precise dates of publication of the taxonomic works of Germar's Versteinerungen (1844–1853) and Schimper & Schenk's Palaeophytologie (1879–1890) are established for the first time.

show abstract

XIX International Botanical Congress: Preliminary guiding mail vote on nomenclature proposals

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

The Code Decoded

The Code Decoded

International Mycological Congress: Guiding Vote on nomenclature proposals to amend Chapter F of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

On the nomenclature of the fossil‐genera Acitheca, Bifariusotheca, Polymorphopteris and Strephopteris (fossil Pteridophyta, Marattiopsida)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About