(218–220) Proposals to authorize binding decisions to be implemented upon General Committee approval of a recommendation, subject to ratification by a later International Botanical Congress

According to the rules in the current Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), a final decision regarding a request for a binding decision (i.e. “whether a descriptive statement satisfies the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a ‘description or diagnosis’”, Art. 38.4, or “whether names or their epithets are sufficiently alike to be confused”, Art. 53.4) is taken by an International Botanical Congress (IBC), with retroactive effect, and listed in the Appendices VI and VII of the Code, respectively. In other words, depending on the date of the request for a binding decision, it is usually necessary to wait from one to six years to have a final decision, with a retroactive effect. Therefore, if one wished to publish a replacement name (or name of a new taxon) for a name whose future use would be rendered impossible by either of these decisions, one technically might have to publish a superfluous, illegitimate name that would then be retroactively made legitimate at the next Congress. This will seem unsatisfactory to many, as will the alternative of waiting up to six years to correct the nomenclature. Since the Cambridge Rules of 1935 (Briquet, Int. Rules Bot. Nomencl., ed. 3. 1935), the implementation of a recommendation by the General Committee (GC) (or its predecessor) to conserve a name has been authorized pending its final approval by the IBC. In the Leningrad Code (Stafleu & al. in Regnum Veg. 97. 1978), the creation of a list of rejected names was authorized; because procedures for managing that process were not specified, initially the procedures used for conservation proposals were to be followed. In the following Sydney Code (Voss & al. in Regnum Veg. 111. 1983), Art. 15.1 specified that both retention and rejection of names were authorized following GC decisions, “subject to the decision of a later International Botanical Congress”. The scientific community using the Code retains the right to make the ultimate decision through the IBC (see Div. III Prov. 5.4), but since rejection of GC recommendations is expected to remain extremely rare, it is beneficial for scientists to be allowed to begin implementing those decisions as soon as possible, including by taking actions such as publishing a legitimate replacement name for a name that will no longer be usable. That rule has been consistently maintained since. Most recently, the relevant articles were changed in the Shenzhen Code to clarify that the GC recommendation “takes effect on the date of effective publication (Art. 29–31) of the General Committee's approval” (on or after 1 Jan 1954 in the case of conservation; see Art. 14.15 and 56.3). In a similar fashion, when the GC has approved a proposal for the suppression of a work under Art. 34.1, Art. 34.2 provides that “[…] suppression of that publication is authorized subject to the decision of a later International Botanical Congress (see also Art. 14.15 and 56.3) and takes retroactive effect”. In that case, because the effect of the decision is retroactive, the exact date upon which the GC approved the recommendation is irrelevant and need not be specified. We argue that it would be simpler and less confusing to have the same rule for all proposals (conservation, rejection and suppression of a work) and binding decisions, allowing the recommendations of the GC to be provisionally implemented as soon as they are available. There is no logical reason why the Code should not permit scientists to act upon the results of requests for binding decisions as promptly as they act in response to reported results of deliberations on proposals to conserve or reject names or to suppress a work. After recent internal discussions and votes, several members of the GC decided to publish these proposals to change the Code to bring the rules for binding decisions in line with the rules for conserved and rejected names and suppression of works. “38.4. When it is doubtful whether a descriptive statement satisfies the requirement of Art. 38.1(a) for a “description or diagnosis”, a request for a decision may be submitted to the General Committee, which will refer it for examination to the specialist committee for the appropriate taxonomic group (see Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10). A General Committee recommendation as to whether or not the name concerned is validly published is to be treated as a binding decision subject to ratification by a later may then be put forward to an International Botanical Congress (see also Art. 14.15, 34.2, 53.4, and 56.3) and, if ratified, will become a binding decision with takes retroactive effect. These binding decisions are listed in App. VI.” “53.4. When it is doubtful whether names or their epithets are sufficiently alike to be confused, a request for a decision may be submitted to the General Committee, which will refer it for examination to the specialist committee(s) for the appropriate taxonomic group(s) (see Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10). A General Committee recommendation as to whether or not to treat the names concerned as homonyms is to be treated as a binding decision subject to ratification by a later may then be put forward to an International Botanical Congress (see also Art. 14.15, 34.2, 38.4, and 56.3) and, if ratified, will become a binding decision with takes retroactive effect. These binding decisions are listed in App. VII.” “5.4. When a vote to reject a General Committee recommendation achieves the required majority (Prov. 5.1(e) or (f)), that recommendation is cancelled and the matter is referred back to the General Committee. Retention or rejection of a name or, suppression of a work, or a binding decision on valid publication or homonymy is no longer authorized (Art. 14.15, 56.3, and 34.2, 38.4, and 53.4).”

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.