Help File for Conserved Plant Names

Conserved and rejected plant names: proposals and disposals by Dan H. Nicolson

(For additional background and history see the announcement of the site: Nicolson, D. H. 2000. A new online bibliographic database of proposals for conservation and rejection of botanical names. Taxon 49: 549-554.)

Introduction

Implicitly conserved and rejected names

Headings:
Props / Cons. / Rej. / Group / Act / Author / Where / Synopsis / Group Comm. / Gen. Comm. / Congr. Proc. / Code / Comm. & Rev.

Introduction: It is not widely known but there is a story behind almost every name listed in the Appendices of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), which now bulk far larger than the Code itself. Indeed there is a story behind many names not listed, i.e. that were proposed and were not approved. It behooves anyone interested in a particular name to check this database to see if it has been considered for conservation and/or rejection. The database aims document the steps that proposals go through so that one can trace the history of every proposed name. As a matter of historical interest, an index to conserved and rejected names was published by Rickett & Staflen (Taxon 10: 178-193. 1961.).

Implicitly conserved and rejected names:Every name explicitly proposed for conservation or rejection is accounted for. This is simple when dealing with family and generic names, i.e. Appendices II (Family Names), IIIA (Generic Names).
However, difficulties begin when conserving and/or rejecting species names. This is because one proposes to conserve or reject a basionym, not the combination(s) based on it. Appendices IIIB (Conserved and Rejected Species Names) and IV (Entirely Rejected Names) both explicitly provide that whatever pertains (conservation or rejection) to a listed basionym, also pertains to any combination based on it, listed or not. These implicitly conserved or rejected combinations are confusing but perhaps two examples will clarify:
1. Cactus cruciformis Vell. 1829 is explicitly conserved (Appendix IIIB) against explicitly rejected (1) Cereus squamulosus DC. 1828, (2) Cereus tenuispinus Haw. 1827, (3) Cereus myosurus DC. 1828, and (4) Cereus tenuis DC. 1828. This means that combinations based on conserved Cactus cruciformis Vell., such as Lepismium cruciforme (Vell.) Miq. 1838, are implicitly conserved over any combination based on any of the explicitly rejected names. The opposite also pertains.
2. Magnolia tomentosa Thunb. 1794 (Thymelaeaceae, not Magnoliaceae) is explicitly rejected (Appendix IV). This means that a combination based on it, Edgeworthia tomentosa (Thunb.) Nakai 1919, is implicitly rejected against any name it might threaten, such as Edgeworthia papyrifera Siebold & Zucc. 1846 or E. chrysantha Lindl. 1846.
Fact: Some implicitly conserved and rejected binomial or trinomial names are listed with an asterisk "*" in the Index of Appendices II-IV (see p. 406 of 2000 St. Louis Code), although most listed are, in fact, explicitly rejected.
Solution: I have added the implicitly conserved names cross-referenced in the Code's Appendix IIIB (e.g. Lepismium cruciforme (Vell.) Miq.) and the implicitly rejected names cross-referenced in Appendix IV (e.g. Edgeworthia tomentosa (Thunb.) Nakai).
This means that if you are interested in whether or not there is a conservation or rejection proposal concerning Edgeworthia, you should use the generic name to query both the conserved and rejected name fields. Before my adding implicitly conserved and rejected names you would have found nothing. Now you will find Edgeworthia tomentosa listed as a rejected name, although the original proposal was to explicitly reject only its basionym, Magnolia tomentosa.

Headings: There are 13 headings often abbreviated, each often using abbreviations:
1. Props. = Proposal number. Although proposals began in 1892, the idea ofassigning them a continuing series of numbers did not begin until 1955. Thus many proposals appear without numbers.
2. Cons. = Name proposed for conservation.
3. Rej. = Name proposed for rejection, whether against a conserved name or for outright rejection (nom. utique rej.).

4. Group = One of 6 taxonomic groups that have Permanent Committees, currently: Spermatophyta (Sperm.), Pteridophyta (Pter.), Bryophyta (Bry.), Fungi (Fungi), Algae (Algae), and Fossil Plants (Foss.).
5. Act = Action proposed: these involve two parts: an initial capital letter: A= Amend, C= Conserve, R= Reject and, in lower case, the rank name involved: f= family, g= genus, se= section, sf= subfamily, sp= species, st= supertribe, t= tribe, v= variety.
6. Author = Author(s) of the proposal.
7. Where = Where the proposal was published.
8. Synopsis = Synopsis of Proposals to a particular Congress where this proposal was cited.

9. Group Comm. = Place where the Committee of the Group (see #4 above) made its recommendation on the proposal, expressed as: a) + = recommended for the proposal (more than 50% or, recently, more than 60% in favor), b) - = recommended against the proposal (more than 50% in opposed or not voting or, recently, more than 60% opposed), or c) 1 no recommendation or, recently, 60% or more neither opposed nor in favor. The latter can be an invitation to the General Committee to see if they can vote decisively.
10. Gen. Comm. = Citation where the General Committee made its recommendation on the proposal. The mathematical signs used (+, -, and 1) are explained above (under 9). Under current Codes, i.e., Art. 14.14 "When a proposal for conservation (or rejection ) of a name has been approved by the General Committee after study by the Committee for the taxonomic group concerned, retention (or rejection) of that name is authorized subject to the decision of a later International Botanical Congress."

11. Congr. Proc. = Citation in the Proceedings of the Congress that authorized inserting the name in the Code. Authorization is a two step process: (1) a statement that the actions of the General Committee are ratified by the Nomenclature Section and (2) the actions of the Nomenclature Section are ratified by the Congress itself. The citation should be of the latter but I may have cited the former sometimes.
12. Code = The Code where the name first appeared. Sometimes names that were only approved by the appropriate Group Committee were put in a Code with an asterisk (*) "Conservation still subject to approval by the General Committee and by the next International Botanical Congress." I have maintained the * entry for that Code and, if all went well, followed it with the citation of the first Code where it appeared without an asterisk or, as sometimes happened, noted that it had been dropped, i.e. disappeared.

13. Comm.&Rev. = Comments and revisions. Comments, pro or con, were sometimes made on a proposal. Revisions are published emendations to already listed names, e.g. early generic conservations lacked citation of generic types, added in revisions published in Taxon.

last revised 26 March 2001

(For additional background and history see the announcement of the site: Nicolson, D. H. 2000. A new online bibliographic database of proposals for conservation and rejection of botanical names. Taxon 49: 549-554.)
	Introduction
	Implicitly conserved and rejected names
	Headings:	Props / Cons. / Rej. / Group / Act / Author / Where / Synopsis / Group Comm. / Gen. Comm. / Congr. Proc. / Code / Comm. & Rev.

	Introduction: It is not widely known but there is a story behind almost every name listed in the Appendices of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), which now bulk far larger than the Code itself. Indeed there is a story behind many names not listed, i.e. that were proposed and were not approved. It behooves anyone interested in a particular name to check this database to see if it has been considered for conservation and/or rejection. The database aims document the steps that proposals go through so that one can trace the history of every proposed name. As a matter of historical interest, an index to conserved and rejected names was published by Rickett & Staflen (Taxon 10: 178-193. 1961.).
	Implicitly conserved and rejected names:Every name explicitly proposed for conservation or rejection is accounted for. This is simple when dealing with family and generic names, i.e. Appendices II (Family Names), IIIA (Generic Names). However, difficulties begin when conserving and/or rejecting species names. This is because one proposes to conserve or reject a basionym, not the combination(s) based on it. Appendices IIIB (Conserved and Rejected Species Names) and IV (Entirely Rejected Names) both explicitly provide that whatever pertains (conservation or rejection) to a listed basionym, also pertains to any combination based on it, listed or not. These implicitly conserved or rejected combinations are confusing but perhaps two examples will clarify: 1. Cactus cruciformis Vell. 1829 is explicitly conserved (Appendix IIIB) against explicitly rejected (1) Cereus squamulosus DC. 1828, (2) Cereus tenuispinus Haw. 1827, (3) Cereus myosurus DC. 1828, and (4) Cereus tenuis DC. 1828. This means that combinations based on conserved Cactus cruciformis Vell., such as Lepismium cruciforme (Vell.) Miq. 1838, are implicitly conserved over any combination based on any of the explicitly rejected names. The opposite also pertains. 2. Magnolia tomentosa Thunb. 1794 (Thymelaeaceae, not Magnoliaceae) is explicitly rejected (Appendix IV). This means that a combination based on it, Edgeworthia tomentosa (Thunb.) Nakai 1919, is implicitly rejected against any name it might threaten, such as Edgeworthia papyrifera Siebold & Zucc. 1846 or E. chrysantha Lindl. 1846. Fact: Some implicitly conserved and rejected binomial or trinomial names are listed with an asterisk "" in the Index of Appendices II-IV (see p. 406 of 2000 St. Louis Code), although most listed are, in fact, explicitly rejected. Solution: I have added the implicitly conserved names cross-referenced in the Code's Appendix IIIB (e.g. Lepismium cruciforme* (Vell.) Miq.) and the implicitly rejected names cross-referenced in Appendix IV (e.g. Edgeworthia tomentosa (Thunb.) Nakai). This means that if you are interested in whether or not there is a conservation or rejection proposal concerning Edgeworthia, you should use the generic name to query both the conserved and rejected name fields. Before my adding implicitly conserved and rejected names you would have found nothing. Now you will find Edgeworthia tomentosa listed as a rejected name, although the original proposal was to explicitly reject only its basionym, Magnolia tomentosa.
	Headings: There are 13 headings often abbreviated, each often using abbreviations: 1. Props. = Proposal number. Although proposals began in 1892, the idea ofassigning them a continuing series of numbers did not begin until 1955. Thus many proposals appear without numbers. 2. Cons. = Name proposed for conservation. 3. Rej. = Name proposed for rejection, whether against a conserved name or for outright rejection (nom. utique rej.).
	4. Group = One of 6 taxonomic groups that have Permanent Committees, currently: Spermatophyta (Sperm.), Pteridophyta (Pter.), Bryophyta (Bry.), Fungi (Fungi), Algae (Algae), and Fossil Plants (Foss.). 5. Act = Action proposed: these involve two parts: an initial capital letter: A= Amend, C= Conserve, R= Reject and, in lower case, the rank name involved: f= family, g= genus, se= section, sf= subfamily, sp= species, st= supertribe, t= tribe, v= variety. 6. Author = Author(s) of the proposal. 7. Where = Where the proposal was published. 8. Synopsis = Synopsis of Proposals to a particular Congress where this proposal was cited.
	9. Group Comm. = Place where the Committee of the Group (see #4 above) made its recommendation on the proposal, expressed as: a) + = recommended for the proposal (more than 50% or, recently, more than 60% in favor), b) - = recommended against the proposal (more than 50% in opposed or not voting or, recently, more than 60% opposed), or c) 1 no recommendation or, recently, 60% or more neither opposed nor in favor. The latter can be an invitation to the General Committee to see if they can vote decisively. 10. Gen. Comm. = Citation where the General Committee made its recommendation on the proposal. The mathematical signs used (+, -, and 1) are explained above (under 9). Under current Codes, i.e., Art. 14.14 "When a proposal for conservation (or rejection ) of a name has been approved by the General Committee after study by the Committee for the taxonomic group concerned, retention (or rejection) of that name is authorized subject to the decision of a later International Botanical Congress."
	11. Congr. Proc. = Citation in the Proceedings of the Congress that authorized inserting the name in the Code. Authorization is a two step process: (1) a statement that the actions of the General Committee are ratified by the Nomenclature Section and (2) the actions of the Nomenclature Section are ratified by the Congress itself. The citation should be of the latter but I may have cited the former sometimes. 12. Code = The Code where the name first appeared. Sometimes names that were only approved by the appropriate Group Committee were put in a Code with an asterisk () "Conservation still subject to approval by the General Committee and by the next International Botanical Congress." I have maintained the entry for that Code and, if all went well, followed it with the citation of the first Code where it appeared without an asterisk or, as sometimes happened, noted that it had been dropped, i.e. disappeared.
	13. Comm.&Rev. = Comments and revisions. Comments, pro or con, were sometimes made on a proposal. Revisions are published emendations to already listed names, e.g. early generic conservations lacked citation of generic types, added in revisions published in Taxon.