(369–373) Proposals to eliminate the future application of Article 20.2 to generic names matching technical terms in morphology

Article 20.2 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) dates back to the earliest international rules of botanical nomenclature (Règles internationales de la nomenclature botanique adoptées par le Congrès international de botanique de Vienne, 1905; Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot. 1906), the so-called Vienna Rules, where the first part of Art. 54 reads as follows: “Art. 54. Names of genera must be rejected in the following special cases: 1. When they are formed from a technical term borrowed from morphology, unless they are accompanied by specific names.” This was slightly modified (as shown in underscore) in the ensuing Brussels Rules (Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2. 1912), to read: “Art. 54. Names of genera must be rejected in the following special cases: 1. When they coincide with a technical term concurrently used in morphology, unless they are accompanied by specific names.” This passage, with further modifications, later became part of Art. 67 of the Cambridge Rules (Briquet, Int. Rules Bot. Nomencl., ed. 3. 1935): “Art. 67. Names of genera are illegitimate in the following special cases and must be rejected. (2) When they coincide with a technical term currently used in morphology unless they were accompanied, when originally published, by specific names in accordance with the binary method of Linnaeus. On and after Jan. 1, 1912, all new generic names coinciding with such technical terms are unconditionally rejected.” Without further change, it became part of Art. 78 of the Stockholm Code (Lanjouw & al. in Regnum Veg. 3. 1952), and then Art. 68 of the subsequent Paris Code (Lanjouw & al. in Regnum Veg. 8. 1956), before landing, with considerable restructuring, in its current place under Art. 20 of the Montreal Code (Lanjouw & al. in Regnum Veg. 23. 1961): “The name of a genus may not coincide with a technical term currently used in morphology unless it was published before 1 Jan. 1912 and was accompanied, when originally published, by a specific name published in accordance with the binary method of Linnaeus.” where it remained unchanged until becoming Art. 20.2 in the Leningrad Code (Stafleu & al. in Regnum Veg. 97. 1978): “ 20.2 The name of a genus may not coincide with a technical term currently used in morphology unless it was published before 1 Jan. 1912 and was accompanied, when originally published, by a specific name published in accordance with the binary system of Linnaeus.” Thereafter, it remained stable until the Vienna Nomenclature Section of 2005, where considerable discussion ensued, stimulated by the then-controversial case of whether to adopt the name Cleistogenes vs. Kengia and leading to a floor proposal by Zijlstra (see Flann & al. in PhytoKeys 45: 78–79, 80–82. 2015), which resulted in two further changes to the Article in the Vienna Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006): “20.2. The name of a genus may not coincide with a Latin technical term in use in morphology at the time of publication unless it was published before 1 January 1912 and accompanied by a specific name published in accordance with the binary system of Linnaeus.” with the addition of this case as one of five Examples (Ex. 5) under it. No proposals or discussion of this Article arose at the Melbourne Nomenclature Section of 2011, but at the subsequent Shenzhen Nomenclature Section the discussion of this Article was revived via a proposal by Linda in Arcadia & Lücking (in Taxon 65: 903–905. 2016) to sunset this provision after 31 December 2011. The proposers argued at length that “Art. 20.2 is both unnecessary and subject to a broad range of interpretations” but acknowledged that “removing it entirely is impractical, as some names that have long been considered not validly published would become validly published, which would lead to instability”, leading them to propose the 2011 end date. After extensive discussion of this proposal (Art. 20 Prop. A) in Shenzhen (see Lindon & al. in PhytoKeys 150: 101–106. 2020), including some friendly amendments to delete the Article altogether, it was rejected. However, the resulting discussion gave rise later that week to Floor Prop. 7, by Funk & al., to delete Art. 20.2 outright and, by adding a new clause (c) to Art. 20.4 (“The following are not to be regarded as generic names”), to prohibit use of the words mentioned in Ex. 4 and Ex. 6 together with a list of other specified words widely used in pharmacopoeia or as descriptive morphological terms. The addition of some of these words was considered necessary because Art. 20.2 had likely originated out of “a concern that several terms used in the pharmacopoeia generally, and used in designation of species of drugs in the form of Latin polynomials, might be considered to have become accidentally but validly published generic names” (Greuter in Lindon & al., l.c.: 241). Nonetheless, Floor Prop. 7 was also rejected. The failure of the proposals to eliminate Art. 20.2 entirely or sunset it was understandable, owing to limited evidence on the impact this might have on nomenclatural stability. Names formerly disregarded as being not validly published under this Article, were it to be eliminated, would now become validly published and could threaten currently accepted names. To have any chance for success, a proposal to remove this Article must undertake a complete analysis of the impact of such an action. Such an analysis is carried out here in furtherance of this objective. Because, as pointed out above, this provision has existed since the earliest Codes, it is necessary to locate those situations where it has been applied for over a century. While this might seem difficult or even impossible to achieve, especially in the early 20th century literature, it is no longer so, for two principal reasons. One relates to the extensive electronic indexing of nearly all scientific literature over this period by internet search engines; the second to the unvarying use of the phrase “technical term” in the relevant Article of every Code since the 1905 Vienna Rules. It is now possible to methodically search the literature for this phrase and other useful keywords and isolate most, if not all, applications of this Article to generic “names”. Searches of comments in nomenclatural databases like Index Nominum Genericorum (ING: https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/ing/), the International Plant Names Index (IPNI: https://www.ipni.org/), and the International Fossil Plant Names Index (IFPNI: http://ifpni.org/) for these terms have also proven useful. A further review of all generic names in IFPNI, Index Fungorum (IF: https://www.indexfungorum.org/), and many in AlgaeBase (https://www.algaebase.org/) has uncovered many additional examples of potential “names” where this provision could have been applied. With this information in hand, we begin by proposing a change to Art. 20.2. In order to mitigate any negative nomenclatural consequences that might result from this change, some additional actions dependent on the results of our analysis will also be required, as proposed below. “20.2. The name of a genus published before 1 January 1912 may not coincide with a Latin technical term in use in morphology at the time of publication unless it was published before 1 January 1912 and was accompanied by a species name published in accordance with the binary system of Linnaeus.” Data from the analysis are detailed in Table 1. The “names” (hereafter also called designations when considered not validly published) involved can be organized into four categories. The first (Table 1A) concerns those designations published before 1912 and not accompanied by a species name. One of these, “Radicula” (Hill, Brit. Herb.: 264. 1756), has exemplified this group in every Code since the 1935 Cambridge Rules. Several others have also been uncovered. Given the limited number of such cases detected, with over a century of elapsed time, no disruption to nomenclature would be expected by retaining this portion of the provision. Table 1B lists names and/or designations published after 1911 to which this Article has been applied at least by some, or could potentially be applied if the Article remained intact, to consider them as not validly published. Those cases mentioned in Ex. 4–6 or where substitute names have been published to replace earlier designations thought to be not validly published are underscored. For some “names” (e.g. Cleistogenes, Colleteria, Scandentia) the application of this rule to such cases has been challenged, and in the former case the rule itself was changed at the 2005 Vienna Nomenclature Section to support this challenge. Nevertheless, a binding decision on the valid publication status of all underscored names or designations in Table 1B, or any others at the discretion of the relevant Permanent Nomenclature Committees, would promote nomenclatural stability. ING “ Lanceolatus” Plumst. [Foss.] ING Darwiniana 39: 30. 2001 ING Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 178: 667. 14 Jun 2015 (https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12293) Trudy Paleontol. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR 139: 135. 1973 “ Univiscidiatus” (Kores) Szlach. [Angiosp.] J. Hattori Bot. Lab. 70: 146. 1991 To account for the binding decisions under Prop. 370 above, which relate to a provision no longer present in the Code if Prop. 369 is accepted, a Note patterned after Art. F.8 Note 2 of the “San Juan Chapter F” (May & al. in IMA Fungus 10(21). 2019), which clarifies cases formerly considered under deleted Art. 59 of the Vienna Code, should be added to Art. 20: “Note n. Editions of the Code prior to the Madrid Code of 2025 included a provision precluding the valid publication after 1911 of the name of a genus that coincided with a technical term in use in morphology at the time of publication. While publication of such names is not recommended (see Rec. 20A.1(n)), in the interest of nomenclatural stability under the current Code binding decisions on the valid publication status for each case or any with identical spelling where this former provision applied are listed in App. VI and take retroactive effect.” Table 1C lists validly published names of subdivisions of genera for which a replacement name in lieu of a name at new rank has been published to avoid their transfer to generic rank in violation of Art. 20.2. With elimination of part of Art. 20.2, a new Recommendation against such transfers is desirable to guard against any future infringements of this type. “20A.1. Authors forming generic names should comply with the following: […] (n) Not publish names for genera that coincide with technical terms currently in use in morphology.” And finally, Table 1D lists several words derived from various sources (Shenzhen Code Art. 20 Ex. 6; Vienna Rules Art. 54 Ex. 1; Floor Prop. 7 in Shenzhen [Lindon & al. in PhytoKeys 150: 264. 2020]) that should continue to be protected against their inadvertent valid publication as generic names with elimination of part of Art. 20.2. A mechanism similar to that advocated by Floor Prop. 7 in Shenzhen is proposed. “20.4. The following are not to be regarded as generic names: […] (n) Some words that have been widely used in pharmacopoeia or as descriptive morphological terms: Balsamum, Bulbus, Caulis, Cortex, Flos, Herba, Lignum, Oleum, Radix, Spina.” We are grateful to Emma Wrankmore for providing feedback on generic designations associated with Art. 20.2 in IPNI, and to Michael Guiry, Paul Kirk and Alexander Doweld for their primary roles in providing to the scientific community data on algal, fungal and fossil names through AlgaeBase, Index Fungorum and the International Fossil Plant Names Index, respectively.

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.