**Turland** explained that Prop. UU addressed another hypothetical situation but noted that this situation may well happen in the future. The proposal sought to provide a rule on what may be done when a previously designated epitype had been lost or destroyed. Unlike the neotype situation in Prop. GG, there was no example of a lost or destroyed epitype given. The proposal seemed to be providing a parallel rule to deal with that situation. It would likely be favoured by delegates who appreciated consistency. Turland stated that the Section had discussed a parallel proposal, Prop. HH, concerning lectotypes. Prop. HH had been rejected, as had Prop. GG concerning neotypes. So this proposal was parallel to two rejected proposals.

**Art. 9, Prop. UU** was **rejected**.

# **Art. 9, Prop. VV** (56: 5: 4: 0)

**Turland** explained that this proposal added the need to explicitly declare that an epitype had been designated. This would be retroactive to 1 January 2001. The proposer considered that this would not be problematic because identifying a type as an epitype would have been common practice since epitypes first entered the *Code* in the *Tokyo Code* of 1994. It would be unusual for somebody to designate an epitype without using the word "epitypus" or "epitype" or an equivalent. Turland noted that this would reinforce current practice.

**Prop. VV** was **accepted**.

**Art. 9, Prop. WW** (2: 4: 55: 5) was **automatically** sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

Recommendation 9A

**Rec. 9A, Prop. A** was discussed under **Art. 8, Prop. J** and **Prop. K**.

**Rec. 9A, Prop. B** (5: 60: 2: 0) was **rejected** based on the **mail vote**.

**Rec. 9A, Prop. C** (15: 42: 10: 0)

**Turland** noted that this proposal recommended against needlessly or senselessly narrowing the choice of a lectotype to a particular part of a specimen unless, for example, the specimen was taxonomically mixed or was suspected to comprise more than one gathering. He quoted the Rapporteurs' comments, "While the advice seems to be reasonable, the proposed Example could be interpreted as either following or going against the Recommendation". Turland explained that if the Example was interpreted as following the Recommendation it could set a precedent for narrowed lectotypifications in any instance where parts may have been attached to the specimen at different times. However, he noted that the Example would be considered by the Editorial Committee if the Recommendation were accepted. The Editorial Committee could provide a replacement Example in which a lectotype choice was narrowed on taxonomic grounds.

**Greuter** said that he opposed the proposal on the grounds that it would imply that some type designations, which in his opinion were not effective, could be considered to have been effectively made. If a lectotype was designated that was only part of a specimen, this was not covered by the *Code* because one was not designating a specimen as the lectotype. On the other hand, if there were different taxa on a herbarium sheet, that herbarium sheet was not a specimen. So, the Recommendation was useless or inappropriate because it recommended against something that could not be possible.

**Sennikov** wished to explain the background of the proposal. It seemed to him to be based on the fact that the definition of a specimen was interpreted in different ways by different people. Some people thought that a specimen was a single fragment on a herbarium sheet; therefore, every fragment on a herbarium sheet was a specimen. Other people thought that a specimen was the whole sheet and it did not matter how many fragments it contained. Those who followed the first approach would say that the type must be designated from among those fragments or small individuals, if a species was small enough and was represented by small individuals. The proposal was to discourage the interpretation that a specimen was the same as a fragment on a herbarium sheet.

**Rec. 9A, Prop. C** was **rejected**.

#### Recommendation 9B

**Rec. 9B, Prop. A** (23: 39: 3: 0)

**Turland** noted that this proposal received a strongly negative mail vote. The Rapporteurs had commented on the phrase, "all available evidence", and noted that this could include post-protologue evidence such as correspondence records or other publications.

**Gereau** said that although this was only a Recommendation, it was a recommendation of bad practice. He noted that people typified as best they could and that taxon names should be typified as well as possible so that the application of names could be fixed. This was the whole purpose of the process and he did not want to discourage it.

**Rec. 9B, Prop. A** was **rejected**.

#### **Rec. 9B, Prop. B** (61: 9: 7: 0)

**Turland** explained that this was a proposal recommending that authors state why the holotype, lectotype, neotype or original material was ambiguous. When designating an epitype, authors should explain the nature of the ambiguity. The Rapporteurs commented that the phrase, "demonstrably ambiguous", in Art. 9.8 merely required such demonstration to be possible, not necessarily enacted.

**Dhabe** thought that it was essential for an author, if they designated an epitype, to mention why they wished to use a specimen other than the holotype. For example, it may be a fruiting specimen or maybe a root or any other part of the plant. The author had to support why they were designating an epitype.

**Lindon** also wished to support the proposal noting that, as a content editor for IPNI, she had observed a spate of people designating holotypes and epitypes at the same time in a protologue. She hoped that if this Recommendation were accepted, authors might think twice about doing this, or at least explain to people looking at the protologue why they were doing this at the same time.

**Rec. 9B, Prop. B** was **accepted**.

Recommendation 9C

**Rec. 9C, Prop. A** (10: 9: \*47: 1)

**Turland** noted that this was a Recommendation explaining that duplicates of lectotypes, neotypes and epitypes were isolectotypes, isoneotypes and isoepitypes, respectively. The proposal sought to convert the Recommendation into a rule and add isosyntype as a duplicate of a syntype. The Rapporteurs, however, questioned whether it should be a rule and thought that it might be better to place the paragraph of Prop. A as a footnote to the word "isosyntype" in Art. 9.3, where it first appeared in the *Code*. Turland quoted the Rapporteurs as saying that otherwise "it might look rather odd for terms used in Art. 9 to be recommended in Rec. 9C".

**Turland** proposed that the Recommendation be sent to the Editorial Committee to put a footnote…

**Knapp** interrupted, asking for five seconders for Turland's proposal to refer the Recommendation to the Editorial Committee to be dealt with as a footnote.

[The **proposal** was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Rec. 9C, Prop. A** was sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

#### Recommendation 9D

**Rec. 9D, Prop. A** (32: 37: 7: 0)

**Turland** said that this proposal sought to provide an alternative to citing any available number permanently and unambiguously identifying the lectotype, neotype or epitype specimen when such a number was unavailable. It suggested that the author designating the type should, if possible, annotate the specimen or publish its photograph with a scale.

**Schori** thought the Recommendation for publishing a photograph was quite useful because if something happened to the type specimen there would be an image available. Such an image could also be used to determine whether there was a duplicate specimen in another herbarium if it showed enough detail.

**Dhabe** suggested that if an illustration were to be accepted, a photograph with a scale should also be accepted as a type specimen when no material was available.

**Gereau** thought that the Recommendation provided sound advice but felt that this was really in the province of editors of publications and not the *Code*. He did not think the *Code* should be recommending on these matters of publication.

**Rec. 9D, Prop. A** was **rejected**.

Article 10 and Recommendation 10A

**Art. 10, Prop. A** (16: 4: 46: 0) was **automatically** sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

**Art. 10, Prop. B** (42: 10: 13: 1)

**Turland** noted that this was a proposal to delete Art. 10.5, Clause (a), which the proposer had demonstrated in the accompanying text to be completely superfluous. As such it was an editorial matter and Turland proposed that it be sent to the Editorial Committee.

[The **proposal** was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Gereau** noted that in their "in-house" discussions of this proposal, they had read this very carefully and had decided that the clause was not redundant and should not be deleted. He could see no reason, therefore, to have it editorialized. The clause was necessary.

**Turland** asked if the proposer of Art. 10 Prop. B could give delegates a brief explanation of why the clause was redundant.

**McNeill,** the proposer, was unsure if he was allowed to do this when the Section were considering whether or not to refer the proposal to the Editorial Committee.

**Knapp** agreed that there should first be a vote on whether to send the proposal to the Editorial Committee or not.

[The proposal was **rejected**; the Section continued its discussion of Art. 10 Prop. B.]

**McNeill** explained that there were two situations to consider. In the first situation the clause was redundant because any type selected under the first sentence of Art.10.2, the situation in which a type [of a species name] was included in the protologue of a name [of a new genus or subdivision of a genus], any element eligible as type would be in the protologue and therefore would not be in conflict with it. The only situation in which a potential type could be in conflict with the protologue would be if it was "otherwise chosen". In that case there was already a provision that such a choice could be superseded if the selection was not conspecific with any of the material, or any element, associated with the protologue. In the first case it could not be superseded because it would be in the protologue. In the second case, the case that applied when a new genus was described without any included species and the type of another species was chosen as a type, it would not be conspecific with any of the material, or any element, associated with the protologue. This could be superseded already under another part of Art. 10.2; therefore the clause seemed to him to be totally superfluous. McNeill went on to say that what Applequist had referred to earlier was that many people did not like the fact that if an element was in the protologue it could not be superseded. McNeill felt that this was a different issue. He noted that, in Sydney [1981], when this clause originally appeared covering both names of species and names of genera, it was deliberate that the word "protologue" be retained from previous versions of the provision, and not "description".

**Art. 10, Prop. B** was **accepted**.

**Art. 10, Prop. C** (57: 5: 3: 0), **Prop. D** (57: 5: 3: 0), **Prop. E** (57: 5: 3: 0), **Prop. F** (50: 11: 4: 0), **Prop. G** (42: 5: 18: 0) **and Rec. 10A, Prop. A** (56: 4: 5: 0)

**Turland** explained that the Section would now discuss a group of proposals made by the Special Committee on Publications Using a Largely Mechanical Method of Selection of Types. He invited McNeill to state, briefly, what the problem was and how this set of proposals sought to address it.

**McNeill** explained that the problem originated in the Seattle Congress [1969], when people realized that the typifications published under the *American Code* [*of Botanical Nomenclature*, 1907] were very frequently at variance with current usage of common generic names. It could have been dealt with differently at the time, but it was decided that people should be allowed to set such names aside. The wording in the new proposals stated that although that typification was acceptable, nevertheless it could be superseded by another choice made later. McNeill went on to say that the question referred to the Special Committee in Melbourne [2011] was: "Which works were published under the *American Code*?" He noted that some were obvious; Britton and Brown's *Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada* was one work that had a large number of types. Others were more problematic. The Special Committee looked at the extent to which typification was largely mechanical and whether this process was restricted entirely to the *American Code*. They looked at the whole situation and came up with what they thought was a practical method of assessing which works should be covered. They also set timelines so that, unless a person specifically said they were using a mechanical method, the appearance of the "Typebasis Code" in 1921 would be the cut-off date. Any implicit use of the *American Code* stopped at that point. As all typifications made by the largely mechanical method only started in about 1890, there was no need for a start date.

McNeill went on to explain that the issue had been that there was now this revision in the *Code*: such names were superseded by the next selection and in many cases these were done by the lists prepared by Hitchcock and Green prior to the Cambridge Congress [1930]. In other areas, the Clements and Shear names for fungi, for example; Clements himself had been a follower of the *American Code* but of course by that time had switched. The Special Committee had tried to identify those categories of people and institutions in which, even though it was not explicitly stated in the work, it was implicit that they were following the *American Code*. The Special Committee had identified, in a way that could be practically applied, which works were involved, and there were only a relatively small number of works in which a large number of typifications occurred.

**Hawksworth** was worried about the word "affirmed" because he thought there may be cases where things had been copied by other people in the interim period. The Editorial Committee would, therefore, have to think about the word "affirmed", otherwise people may find there were works that had been taken to be typifications now that previously would have been superseded by other ones.

**Gandhi** noted that it was for the *Melbourne Code* that the late Dr James Reveal and himself had made the proposal about the mechanical method of typification. He noted that it was Professor Reed Rollins who was mainly responsible for the introduction of the concept of mechanical method of selection in the *Code*. Reveal and Gandhi proposed that as long as the concept of the *American Code* was not mentioned in a floristic work and a typification was cited, then it should not be treated as a method of mechanical processing. Gandhi gave an example of *The Bahama Flora*, a floristic work published in 1920, in which Britton did not mention anywhere that the *American Code* was practised. Both Reveal and Gandhi argued that any typification mentioned in that work should be accepted as genuine, not as mechanical. Their proposal was sent to the Special Committee. Reveal passed away and then, within the Special Committee, John McNeill revised what they had originally proposed, and the group of proposals under discussion were the outcome.

**Knapp** asked Gandhi if he was speaking in support of the proposals.

**Gandhi** confirmed that, yes, he was on the Committee and supported the proposals. **Thiele** proposed that delegates should vote on all of the proposals together.

**Knapp** stated that the Section would now vote on whether the proposals would be considered and voted on as a single package.

[The **proposal** was **accepted**.]

**Turland** noted that Prop. G only concerned Examples, so would automatically go to the Editorial Committee.

**Wiersema** remembered that, in the Smithsonian discussions, Soreng had raised a reference that had not been taken into account and needed to be included in the list.

**Soreng** explained that Hitchcock was proposing types in 1918 that were definitely within the timeframe of the *American Code*, but he was rejecting it at that time. In this publication he designated several types, one of which he later did not accept in 1920. Green then voted for Hitchcock's original lectotype in 1929. Hitchcock had been explicit that he was not following the *American Code* by this time, although some of his earlier typifications were a little "iffier". In summary, Hitchcock could not be included automatically as having followed the *American Code*.

**McNeill** thought that as Hitchcock was a US Government employee at that time, he would likely fall under it. However, if any work indicated that it was following the "Type-basis Code", or anything else, then that work would be excluded. McNeill added that if there was no explicit evidence, it might run into difficulty. However, if in 1929 Hitchcock adopted the revised version, this would supersede the earlier version so it probably would not matter. If Hitchcock indicated that he was not following a mechanical method, it would be acceptable.

**Greuter** said that he was aware of the Hitchcock situation and specifically wanted to speak against clause (*e*) of Art. 10 Prop. F, which as formulated did not appear to be appropriate. He was opposed to penalizing the work of someone just because of where

he was employed. The fact that he could not support this clause prompted him to vote against all the proposals if they were voted on in one go. In general, he was favourably impressed by the quality of the work of the Committee, but he would not be able to vote for a set of proposals that included this clause.

**Garland** stated that there did not appear to be any wording in the proposal to the effect that an author's statement that they were not following the *American Code* (or a largely mechanical method of type selection) would be taken into account by this rule. Garland said he was thinking of Prop. F, clauses (*f*) and (*e*).

**McNeill**, speaking for the whole Committee, stated that they would be very happy to include "unless otherwise provided" or some wording of that sort, indicating that if there was a statement from an author that they were not following a largely mechanical method, the proposal would not apply. In addition, he would be happy to amend the proposal to include a provision that made sure that someone like Hitchcock, or anyone else who explicitly was not following the *American Code* in this period, was not covered by the clause. McNeill, however, was not sure why Greuter felt that clause (*e*) was unacceptable because while Britton was director of the New York Botanical Garden there was a clear ruling that the *American Code* would be followed. McNeill stated that there seemed to be no suggestion that anyone working at that Garden, or closely associated with it at that time, was not following the *American Code*, although they did not specify it. He asked Greuter if he might further explain his objection.

**Greuter** stated that his objection was to the implication, in the proposed wording, that employees of the New York Botanical Garden were slavishly following the directives of their director.

**McNeill** said he thought they were. [*Laughter*]

**Levin** commented that he was uncomfortable with the idea that they were entertaining an amendment and felt that there should be a specific proposal. He proposed that at the beginning of Art. 10.5*ter* the words "Unless the author specifically states they are not following a mechanical method of type selection, the following criteria determine…"

[*There followed some wordsmithing and issues with showing the amendments on screen*.]

**Knapp** confirmed that McNeill and the Committee **accepted** Levin's wording as a **friendly amendment** and asked for further comment on the amended proposal.

**Gandhi** was not sure that the wording was appropriate, as he believed the term "mechanical method" was introduced only in the 1960s or '70s. He suggested, as a friendly amendment, replacing "following a mechanical method of type selection" with "following the *American Code*", as it referred to what happened prior to 1935.

[The **amendment** was considered **unfriendly**.]

**Gandhi** voiced his concern over the wording, reiterating that he thought the concept of the mechanical method came into existence only in the 1960s, so he wanted to know what words could be used to apply to typification carried out before 1935.

**Thiele** called the question.

[The Section voted **to vote**.]

**Art. 10, Prop. C, Prop. D** and **Prop. E** were **accepted**.

**Art. 10, Prop. F** was **accepted as amended** and **Prop. G** was **automatically** sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

#### **Rec. 10A, Prop. A** was **accepted**.

**Knapp** praised delegates for finishing Art. 10 in time for lunch. She asked that delegates look at the sign on the door on their way out regarding the tea concert that would be held at 8 o'clock that evening.

[*The Section broke for lunch*.]

#### **Tuesday, 18th July 2017, Afternoon Session**

**Knapp** welcomed everyone back after lunch and reminded the Section that proposals from the floor should be delivered by hand or e-mailed to the Bureau by the end of the afternoon session on Thursday (20th July), so that the Bureau would have time to look at them and think about how to order the discussion of them. Members of the Bureau, and other members of the Section, would be available for discussion and advice should anyone require help to put together a sensible proposal that would not be rejected out of hand. The chance of a proposal from the floor being accepted was extremely small; only 11% of proposals from the floor had been accepted at the Melbourne Congress [2011], so they had to be very well constructed.

**Turland** wished to reiterate that he and the Vice-rapporteur would be happy to give an informal opinion on proposals from the floor before they were submitted.

#### Article 11

#### **Art. 11, Prop. A** (12: 0: \*54: 0)

**Turland** explained that this was a proposal for which, in the mail vote, an Editorial Committee vote had special meaning. The Rapporteurs considered the Note to be a useful clarification of how to determine the correct name for a taxon. The Note was relevant to Art. 11.4, which explained how to determine the correct name for a taxon below the rank of genus. Turland referred delegates to the wording of the *Code*, noting that when clause (*b*) applied, the existing *Code* did not specify how a correct name should be determined. The Rapporteurs noted in their comments that because the proposed Note spelled out what the Article did not cover, it would be best if it were incorporated into Art. 11.4. In other words, it needed to be an Article in itself, or part of an Article. Turland also noted that there should be a phrase added stating that, if there was no final epithet of a legitimate name available, a replacement name may be published. Turland went on to note that if the proposal was passed, the Example would go to the Editorial Committee. He supposed that in this case the Rapporteurs were proposing an amendment to the proposal.

[Because the proposers were not present, the Rapporteurs' **amendment** was considered **unfriendly**; it received **five seconders** and was then **accepted**.]

**Greuter** wondered whether the addition of the replacement name at the end of the proposed Note deliberately left out the option of publishing the name of a new taxon.

**Turland** believed that this was also an option and it had been left out accidentally, not deliberately, so it could be added.

[The **amendment** to the **amendment** was accepted as **friendly**.]

**Gandhi** said it was not clear to him why the name of a new taxon was required, because there was no new taxon in this case.

**Turland** stated that it was not required, but it was a possibility.

**Gandhi** did not think the situation applied to a new taxon. It was about an existing taxon requiring an alternative name.

**Greuter** explained that it was obvious that these two possibilities existed if there was no other, earlier epithet available in a legitimate name. Mentioning only one would appear to discriminate against the other and this was not an impression that should be conveyed by a Note that aimed to be clarifying.

**Knapp** stated that it was no longer a Note; the amendment was to make it part of an Article.

**Greuter** agreed, noting that his comment applied equally.

#### **Art. 11, Prop. A** was **accepted as amended**.

**Art. 11, Prop. B** (56: 2: 5: 1), **Prop. C** (50: 1: 12: 1), **Prop. D** (50: 1: 12: 1), **Prop. E** (50: 1: 12: 1) and **Prop. F** (50: 1: 11: 2)

**Turland** noted that this set of proposals formed a group submitted by the same proposer. Prop. C to Prop. F concerned Examples and would automatically be sent to the Editorial Committee, but they were contingent on Prop. B being accepted. If Prop. B was rejected, the other proposals would be redundant.

**Wiersema** suggested that Herendeen might wish to comment on the proposal.

**Turland** agreed but wanted first to state that the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils unanimously supported all five proposals and there was a very positive mail vote on all five.

**Herendeen** stated that the proposals were necessary because they dealt with dinoflagellates, which had a dual nomenclature system, depending on whether the cyst or motile phase of the lifecycle was being dealt with. Without these changes to the *Code* there would be problems in the synonymy or selection of names for these dinoflagellates.

#### **Art. 11, Prop. B** was **accepted**.

**Art. 11, Prop. C, Prop. D, Prop. E** and **Prop. F** were **automatically** sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

### Article 13

**Art. 13, Prop. A** (5: 56: 2: 3) and **Prop. B** (7: 58: 0: 1) were **rejected** based on the **mail vote**.

### Article 14 and Recommendation 14A

**Art. 14, Prop. A** (8: 56: 1: 0) and **Prop. B** (10: 55: 1: 0) were **rejected** based on the **mail vote**.

# **Art. 14, Prop. C** (57: 3: 2: 0)

**Wiersema** believed it was in Melbourne [2011] that they had added the ability to conserve infrageneric names or infraspecific names if they were the basionym of a genus or a species name. There were some of these in the *Code* and they appeared as though they were conserved, but in fact the conservation was at a higher level, genus or species, and it was not clear that the basionyms of these were also conserved. The provision had been added, and it was now clear that the names were conserved. However, it turned out that there was at least one case in App. IV where there was a replaced synonym of a name that was listed with its replacement name. It appeared as though both of these names were conserved but, in fact, the *Code* had no provision to allow that. In this situation, if the two did not have the same type, and the replaced synonym had to revert back to the type that it had before the conservation proposal, it would be problematic. To solve this and any future situations where this might be undertaken, the proposal would make it possible to conserve the basionym or replaced synonym of a genus or a species name that could not continue to be used in its current sense without conservation. The proposal solved an existing nomenclatural problem that would otherwise require a conservation proposal to fix and would allow this practice in the future.

**Art. 14, Prop. C** was **accepted**.

**Art. 14, Prop. D** (37: 4: 23: 0)

**Turland** explained that this proposal was a reformulation of the third sentence of Art. 14.9 and he proposed to refer it to the Editorial Committee.

[The **proposal** was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Art. 14, Prop. D** was sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

**Knapp** took this opportunity to clarify the procedure for sending proposals to the Editorial Committee. She explained that the issue had been discussed over lunch and she admitted to having been "very confused" about the procedure. Knapp stated that this was entirely her fault and apologized to the Section for the confusion. Knapp went on to state that sending a proposal to the Editorial Committee would work in the same way as sending a proposal to a Special-purpose Committee. She felt that it was important that the Section understood, and that people reading the Proceedings understood, what sending something to the Editorial Committee meant. Sending something to a Special-purpose Committee meant it would be considered by that Special-purpose Committee, not that they would use it, but that it was part of something that was being considered in more depth later in the time between the Congresses. Sending something to the Editorial Committee meant that the Editorial Committee could look at it and may or may not include it in the *Code*. Sending something to the Editorial Committee did not imply that it would automatically become part of the *Shenzhen Code*. Knapp warned that there was an important distinction there, and it was important that people realized that sending something to the Editorial Committee did not mean that it had been accepted: it meant that the Section had given the Editorial Committee latitude to do with it what they wanted. Knapp asked delegates if that was clear and thanked them, explaining that she just wanted to make sure that everyone was on the same page about what it meant, because she felt she had confused the matter.

**Art. 14, Prop. E** (7: 52: 5: 0), **Prop. F** (3: 55: 6: 0) and **Prop. G** (2: 57: 5: 0) were **rejected** based on the **mail vote**.

**Art. 14, Prop. H** (49: 9: 5: 0), **Prop. K** (51: 5: 5: 0) and **Rec. 14A, Prop. A** (54: 7: 3: 1)

**Turland** noted that these three proposals were linked with Art. 14 Prop. I and Prop. J and wondered whether the Section wished to talk about them all together or not. The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi supported all five but had noted that both lichenologists on the Committee for Fungi opposed Prop. J. The Council of the International Association for Lichenology, however, supported Prop. J. Turland suggested that it would be sensible to discuss Art. 14 Prop. H and K together with Rec. 14A Prop. A first, because they all concerned replacing "accepted" with "protected". The three proposals could form a group, which could be accepted or rejected together, and the second two were contingent on the first.

**May** noted that there were another couple of proposals to discuss in the way Turland had suggested splitting them up. The terms dealt with in Art. 14 Prop. H and K and Rec. 14A Prop. A were also dealt with in Art. 56 Prop. C and F and Rec. 56A Prop. A. Looking ahead, therefore, he wished to alert delegates to the fact that these proposals would be connected back in.

**Wiersema** agreed that it was a similar concept, but he thought the terminology in the second case was different. The Art. 56 proposals dealt with rejected names, whereas the Art. 14 proposals dealt with protected names.

**Turland** explained that in the case of Art. 56 the word "rejected" was being replaced with "suppressed", whereas in Art. 14 the word "accepted" was being replaced by "protected". He agreed, therefore, that it was a similar concept, a change in terminology, but still thought they could be treated independently and voted on separately. However, delegates should bear in mind how they had voted on Art. 14 when discussion on Art. 56 began. Turland noted that the Art. 56 proposals were not contingent on what the Section did with Art. 14.

**Hawksworth** pointed out that the proposals had already been discussed extensively by mycologists. The terminology had been discussed with different alternatives at special meetings in the Netherlands and at the last IMC and had been reviewed by the International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi. A lot of thought had gone into finding words that were not competing or confusable with other words in the *Code*.

**Knapp** asked Turland whether the proposals would be voted on together or separately.

**Turland** suggested that Prop. H should be voted on first, then the next two would probably be automatic because they would be editorial. However, they could all be voted on individually.

**Knapp** ruled that, for the purposes of procedure, the Section should vote on the proposals individually.

# **Art. 14, Prop. H** and **Prop. K,** and **Rec. 14A, Prop. A** were **accepted**.

# **Art. 14, Prop. I** (53: 7: 4: 0)

**May** thought this was a useful clarification because they had some difficulty in the Committee for Fungi interpreting what "treated as conserved" meant. This proposal spelled out the meaning, making it clearer and easier to apply.

#### **Art. 14, Prop. I** was **accepted**.

**Art. 14, Prop. J** (49: 10: 4: 0)

**Turland** stated that this proposal was to remove the exception for lichenicolous fungi or lichen-forming fungi from Art. 14.13.

**Hawksworth** explained that the inclusion of the clause was due to a misunderstanding by a delegate at the last Congress that lichens were pleomorphic, and it was not actually necessary at all. If the proposal was to be rejected there would be cases where families and genera could feature on protected lists for some of the species, and some of the genera would be included but not others. Hawksworth pointed out that at least 40 genera included lichenized and non-lichenized species, so some could be protected, but not others; therefore, it seemed nonsensical to retain this clause in the article.

**Applequist** wondered why, if the clause was nonsensical, many lichenologists apparently supported it.

**Kirk** stated that it was made clear that the International Association for Lichenology supported this change and that it was an un-named delegate in Melbourne [2011] who did not quite understand the proposal that was presented there.

**Knapp** asked Kirk to explain what had not been understood.

**Kirk**, not being a lichenologist, deferred to Hawksworth.

**Hawksworth** stated that there had been concern because Art. 59 gave some precedence to sexually typified morphs. This had the potential to upset lichenology where, for example, a lichen thallus had pycnidia or no sexual production there, but lichen conidia were not actually part of the pleomorphism in the sense that it was understood generally, because these were part of the sexual cycle. The key point in Art. 59 was that the actual structure that made these was the important thing. The sterile lichen was still the structure which would make the apothecia, so it was not relevant to include this exception in the first place.

**Redhead** explained that the history of Art. 14.13 was that the proposal had come up from the floor in Melbourne and was part of the replacement package to a whole series of things concerning pleomorphic fungi. The package was distributed in Melbourne with only a few days' notice. There was one lichenologist present who was apprehensive and did not fully understand the implications. The phrase was placed in the Article to get Art. 14.13 passed so that they could move on with creating lists of conserved and rejected names. However, the more mycologists looked at it, including the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi and a larger body of lichenologists, the more they realized that it was just introducing complications and was difficult to support. This was why the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi wished just to exclude this series of exceptions and make it homogeneous for the fungi.

**Greuter** commented that he was in favour of bringing some more logic into Art. 14.13 as proposed but, as a friendly amendment, suggested the deletion of the words "for organisms treated as fungi" and to insert "appropriate nomenclature committee" instead of "Nomenclature [Committee] for Fungi".

[The **amendment** was considered **unfriendly** and was not supported by **five seconders**.]

**Art. 14, Prop. J** was **accepted**.

### **Art. 14, Prop. L** (58: 3: 3: 0)

**Turland** stated that this proposal adjusted Art. 14.16 to clarify that it was not just the name that should be retained but the application of the name. In other words, the intent of the conservation proposal. Retention of a name as approved would be authorized subject to the decision of a later IBC, because names may be conserved to preserve a gender, orthography, spelling or type. Therefore, it was not just the name but could be other aspects of the conservation proposal. Turland thought this was not editorial because it was a little bit extra. However, it did accord with current practice and made what had been the practice, and what would still be the practice, explicit in the *Code*.

**Art. 14, Prop. L** was **accepted**.

#### **Art. 14, Prop. M** (55: 9: 3: 0)

**Wiersema** introduced this proposal by noting that the rules relating to conservation were retroactive, but actions taken under the rules were not. As conservation was one of those actions, he explained that there was a need to know when the conservation would take effect. Various dates could be picked, and he noted that the same concept would come into play with Art. 56 concerning rejection, and other proposals dealing with binding decisions. He noted that Art. 14.16 stated, "When a proposal for the conservation of a name has been approved by the General Committee after study by the committee for the taxonomic group concerned, retention of that name is authorized." This seemed to be the best date to accept for when conservation would take effect. Wiersema cautioned that this would be subject to the approval of the IBC, but botanists, mycologists or phycologists would be able to create replacement names for names that would otherwise still have been available until such time as they were rejected [under Art. 14], which would have implications on replacement names. This proposal would ensure that once the conservation or rejection had taken place, one would be free to replace the name and not have to worry about such a situation. It would set a date in the case of conserved names. Wiersema pointed out that this conservation had been happening since the Vienna Rules of 1906. For the earliest *Codes*, those decisions were published in the proceedings of the Congress, and for later *Codes* the conservation dates were published in the General Committee report in *Taxon*. These dates would be the effective dates and they were spelled out for the entire history of conservation.

**Applequist** stated that the motivation of wanting to protect the legitimacy of replacement names was valid, but she had a concern about the phrasing of the proposal. The existing Article paid lip service to the decision of the later IBC. She said that delegates were going to be discussing the codification of rules for how a Nomenclature Section might reject a General Committee recommendation. Applequist explained that the *Code* stated that when a name was conserved or rejected it was added to the Appendices. If that happened on the date of effective publication of the General Committee report, since there was no provision for removing a name from the Appendices by any means, it would become completely impossible for the Nomenclature Section to overturn the decision of a General Committee, which would be undemocratic. Applequist wondered whether the proposer would accept a friendly amendment either to make the conservation retroactive to the date of the General Committee report, or to add them to the Appendices only after IBC approval.

**Turland** wished to make the point that there was nothing in the *Code* to say that when the General Committee had approved, for example a conservation proposal, it had to go in the Appendices. It was Art. 14.16 and it said retention of that name was authorized subject to the decision of a later IBC. Turland noted that some of the earlier editions of the *Code* had marked provisional entries with an asterisk, all of which were later approved by a subsequent IBC.

**McNeill** did not think Applequist was correct in saying that it was not possible to remove a name from the Appendices. It was not possible to remove a conserved name from the Appendices, but if the name was not approved by the IBC it would cease to be a conserved name. McNeill understood that it was the Congress that made the final decision. However, in the whole history of the very thick Appendices, there had been only two cases where any of those names had ever been questioned and none had ever been overthrown. McNeill felt like the botanical community were all still living in the shadow of *Acacia* and he understood the concern. However, he did not think it would be nomenclaturally disruptive if it turned out that what had been decided to have been the effective date had to be changed. It seemed to him that the sooner one could allow a name that had been approved for conservation to take effect, the better. He thought the proposal to time it on the publication of the General Committee report was an excellent one.

**Marhold** wished to make a comment on a technicality, asking if the link to the database of proposals would be stable over six years. He suggested that the link should be replaced with a more general reference.

[This was **accepted** as a **friendly amendment**.]

**Gereau** referred to the previous question from Applequist and whether this was considered a friendly amendment, as there had not been an answer.

**Knapp** explained that Applequist's proposal had not been accepted.

**Wiersema** said he did not remember saying anything on that.

**Applequist** repeated that her amendment would be either to make the conservation take effect after IBC approval, retroactively to the date of the General Committee report, or to say that it took effect on the date of publication of the report, but the name would not be entered into the Appendices until after the Nomenclature Section approved it.

**Wiersema** stated that names would never go into the Appendices before the resolution was passed at the Congress.

**Knapp** thought that this was what McNeill had been explaining and asked him to clarify further.

**McNeill** stated that John Wiersema was the expert on the Appendices, so he would hesitate to suggest otherwise. It had only been in the very recent years, starting with Greuter who managed to get the *Code* out within a year, and successive Rapporteurs who had also succeeded in doing this. In all previous times there was a time lag between the IBC and the publication of the Appendices. This was time enough for the General Committee to have considered several conservation proposals and to have them included in the Appendices with asterisks. McNeill expected that this time, despite the fact that he thought the Rapporteur-général would have the *Code* out very rapidly given the speed of electronic publication, it would be perfectly possible that some proposals for conservation would be approved by the General Committee before the Appendices were published. McNeill went on to suggest that if the Appendices were, in fact, entirely online, should they not be continually updated once a decision had been approved by the General Committee? He felt that the suggestion by Applequist would be completely destructive in terms of rapidly ensuring that the effects of conservation could be utilized.

**Wiersema** agreed and considered **Applequist's amendment** as **unfriendly**.

**Knapp** asked Applequist if she was prepared to make a proposal for the amendment. **Applequist** declined.

**Barrie** pointed out why the proposal was necessary: authors of such proposals tended to act on them as soon as the General Committee had published their decisions. They did not wait for IBC approval. This proposal was, therefore, legitimizing current practice. If the Section were to set this up so that the names did not become officially conserved until they were approved by the Congress, there could be a lot of disruptive nomenclatural issues.

**Art. 14, Prop. M** was **accepted as amended**.

**Rec. 14A, Prop. A** was discussed under **Art. 14, Prop. H** and **Prop. K**.

#### Article 15

**Art. 15, Prop. A** (5: 58: 3: 0) was **rejected** based on the **mail vot**e.

Article 16

**Art. 16, Prop. A** (43: 7: 16: 0)

**Turland** explained that this was a proposal to replace "the name of an included genus" by "a generic name". The proposer had demonstrated that this was superfluous wording from a previous edition of the *Code* and was editorial. The Rapporteurs agreed that it was editorial. Turland proposed that it be sent to the Editorial Committee.

**Art. 16, Prop. A** was sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

**Art. 16, Prop. B** was discussed under **Art. 6, Prop. L**.

**Art. 16, Prop. C** (57: 2: 5: 1)

**Turland** stated that this concerned the terminations in names of algae in Art. 16.3. The Nomenclature Committee for Algae supported the proposal. He asked if there was someone from the Committee who would like to comment.

**Nakada** said that he was a phycologist and as far as he knew only a limited number of phycologists used the termination of -*phycota* after the Melbourne Congress [2011]; therefore, he strongly supported the proposal.

**Art. 16, Prop. C** was **accepted**.

#### Article 18

**Art. 18, Prop. A** (30: 17: 19: 0) and **Prop. B** (24: 15: 27: 0)

**Turland** suggested that these two proposals be considered together. Prop. A was to restore Art. 18.3 to its pre-Melbourne phrasing and Prop. B added a Note. The proposer pointed out that the current wording of Art. 18.3 contained an internal contradiction: if an illegitimate generic name was conserved it was not illegitimate, hence restoring the old wording and explaining it with a Note. The proposals were editorial and could be sent to the Editorial Committee, which would also address the details noted by the Rapporteurs in their comments. Turland pointed out that Art. 19 Prop. B and Prop. C were parallel to these proposals. As the Rapporteurs' comments were quite short he read them out: "Prop. A and B concern illegitimacy of the name of a family under Art. 18.3 and belong to a set… If accepted, the Note of Prop. B would need to be editorially adjusted ([because] Art. 18.3 applies to a name of a family, not to a genus, and if a name of a family were a later homonym it would remain illegitimate)". Turland noted that there were some minor issues that, if passed, the Editorial Committee would take care of. He proposed that the proposals be sent to the Editorial Committee.

**Art. 18, Prop. A** and **Prop. B** were sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

Recommendation 18A (new)

# **Rec. 18A (new), Prop. A** (45: 17: 4: 0)

**Turland** explained that this would add good advice in a new Recommendation after Art. 18.

**Gereau** felt that while the Recommendation provided good advice, it was overly prescriptive as a Recommendation. However, he would not support converting it to an Article as it would be too prescriptive there too. Therefore, he thought it should just "go away".

[The vote on the proposal by show of hands did not clearly reach the 60% majority required and a **card vote** was requested.]

[*The card vote was followed by a tea break and discussion of the next proposal, which was interrupted by the receipt of the results of the card vote. The following discussion of the results of the card vote is added here for clarity.*]

**Knapp,** on receipt of the card vote results, asked delegates to pay attention to which one of the little cards they tore off for a card vote. She noted that there were cards with the numbers 12, 23 and 13 in the boxes.

**Monro** asked if there were any 3s [*3 being the number that was supposed to have been used*].

**Knapp** noted that there were lots of 3s, so most people had behaved beautifully. However, she repeated that delegates had to pay close attention to what card they used, because 12, 23 and 13 could no longer be used in a card vote. If this continued, delegates would limit the number of card votes there could be and when it came to something delegates thought was very important, they would not be able to have a card vote on it.

**Redhead** suggested that if there were cards in the box with the wrong number on them, it was not possible to know whether people threw in two ballots, and so the card vote should be done again. [*Groans and noes*]

**Schori** (as one of the Tellers) pointed out that it would not be significant.

**Turland** added that it was not necessary because the cards had been put into bags and numbered, and only one vote was done at a time.

**Redhead** argued that technically someone could have thrown two cards in.

**Schori** repeated her point that there were not enough [cards with the wrong numbers] to affect the vote, there were only one or two of each of the wrong numbers, so it was not enough to affect the vote in any significant way.

**Knapp** read out the results (below) confirming that the inclusion, or not, of the wrong numbered cards would not have made any difference to the result. Knapp suggested that the next time this happened, cards with the wrong numbers on them should be excluded from the vote. She asked for a show of hands and delegates agreed that this should be the case. Knapp thanked the Section, stating: "No hanging chads! Americans will all get that, but nobody else will". Knapp thanked her Tellers who had been the fastest she had ever seen at any IBC. She asked delegates to give them a round of applause. [*Applause*]

**Rec. 18A (new), Prop. A** was **rejected** based on the **card vote** (264 yes: 271 no; 49.3% yes)

[*The sequence of events now reverts to its chronological order*.]

#### Article 19

**Art. 19, Prop. A** (61: 2: 3: 0)

**Wiersema** stated that this proposal would clarify that a subdivision of a family that included a type of the adopted legitimate name of the family, but was not formed from the generic name equivalent to that type, was incorrect but may still be validly published and could become correct later. There was a proposed Example that could be submitted to the Editorial Committee for consideration. Wiersema thought that it was back in the Berlin *Code* [1988] that there were autonyms at this level but, subsequent to that, the autonyms at these subdivisions of families no longer existed and the *Code* had glossed over what to do or what the status of those names were.

**Greuter** stated that he thought it was the Sydney Congress [1981] that introduced the new autonym concept in which the "typical subdivisions of a family" did not bear autonyms any longer. The reason for this was that these were univerbal names, or not combinations with the family names as part of them. There was no reason and no technical way to declare them autonyms. They were still sometimes considered as if they were autonyms, but they were not. They had to be treated, when published, as names of new taxa, for instance; they were not formed automatically. Greuter noted that at lower ranks, the subdivision of a genus that included the type of the name of the genus must be an autonym, and above the rank of genus this was no longer so. Below the rank of genus, when the subdivision of the genus that included the type of the adopted name of the genus could not be an autonym, or have the form of an autonym, then it would not be validly published. However, the situation for the names above the rank of genus had been glossed over in past editions of the *Code*, and this proposal provided a possible answer.

**Gandhi** asked if the incorrect name in this case would be superfluous and legitimate or just incorrect. He explained that incorrect names could also be superfluous but could continue to be legitimate, so he wondered what the situation would be according to this proposal.

**Wiersema** asked Gandhi if he was referring to Art. 52.3 and confirmed that he thought this would apply because the name was included that ought to have been adopted. However, in this case it could later be excluded and be correct.

**Art. 19, Prop. A** was **accepted**.

**Art. 19, Prop. B** (34: 15: 17: 0) and **Prop. C** (25: 13: 28: 0)

**Turland** stated that Art. 19 Prop. B and C went together and that they were parallel to the recently discussed Art. 18 Prop. A and B. They were editorial and could be sent to the Editorial Committee. The Rapporteurs had some minor concerns which could be addressed and fixed by the Editorial Committee. Turland therefore proposed that they be sent to the Editorial Committee.

# [The **proposal** was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Alford** stated that he was "a little leery" about committing this to the Editorial Committee because, if this were to happen, it may or may not show up in the next *Code*, whereas if delegates voted yes or no, which he thought they should do, then at least the principle of the matter would be taken care of in the next *Code*.

**Knapp** clarified that these proposals were just rephrasing of Articles that were already in the *Code*.

**Art. 19, Prop. B** and **Prop. C** were sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

# Article 20

# **Art. 20, Prop. A** (29: 33: 3: 1)

**Turland** noted that out of all the 397 proposals, this one was the longest in terms of explanatory text for a single proposal. It explained why Art. 20.2 should never have been part of the *Code*. The proposers considered the rule unnecessary and considered the term "morphology" subject to a broad range of interpretations. They noted that deleting the Article outright was impractical, because designations that had long been considered not validly published would then become validly published names and cause untold disruption. Instead, they proposed a retroactive ending date in line with that of the requirement for a Latin description or diagnosis, 31 December 2011. This would also permit two recently published generic names of lichen and fungi, "*Caeruleum*" and "*Carbonicola*", to be validly published. The proposers were not aware of any similar cases in botanical or mycological nomenclature since what was now Art. 20.2 first came into effect in the Montreal *Code* of 1961. Turland clarified that the problem was the term "morphology". It was subject to a broad range of interpretations and Art. 20.2 did not really define what was meant by it. The proposers wanted to "switch off" the Article, slightly retroactively, rather than delete it.

**Schori** stated that she was not in favour of the proposal. It seemed to her that the authors wanted to change something that had been in place for quite a while just because they wanted to be able to keep two names that they had published. She did not think that it was particularly helpful to go changing the *Code* just because someone had a couple of pet projects that they wanted to protect.

**Barrie** recollected that the reason this came to the authors' attention was because the two generic names they published were extremely obscure terms and it was controversial whether or not they were actually morphological terms. The terms were extremely specialized, and Barrie thought they were used in some small group other than botany. He explained that this was a problem that people could run into: entirely innocently coming up with a generic name and then all of a sudden it was discovered to be some obscure morphological term. Barrie therefore supported the proposal because he thought it would simplify people's lives.

**Gereau** agreed with Barrie. He stated that the Article had been an utterly unworkable rule from its inception, not only the decision of what was morphology, but "morphology of what?" Gereau explained that he had recently been asked to give an opinion on a genus, which he would not name, where the objection was raised that it was the plural of a term currently in use for beetles. The Article did not specify plant morphology, so it could be a Latin term in morphology of anything, and the term in question was ambiguous because it was a neo-Latin form of a Greek word. Gereau asked how these sorts of names were to be judged, repeating that the Article had never been workable. He went on, robustly, to state that the proposal gave a 100-year window from January 1912 to December 2011 for this rule to be in effect, and it was "time for this turkey to die!" [*Laughter*]

**Gandhi** said that about a week earlier he had been asked for an opinion about a recently published algal genus called *Setacea*. This was a descriptive adjectival term and someone, without checking Stearn's *Botanical Latin*, used that adjectival term as a genus name. Based on Art. 20.2, he had given his opinion that it had not been validly published.

**Levin** asked if anyone remembered what the justification was for the rule in the first place.

**McNeill** drew attention to the existing Ex. 2 and Ex. 3 under Art. 20.2, stating that they were nouns that were technical terms. In 19th century literature it was sometimes difficult to know whether a person was really describing a new genus or whether in fact they were just talking about a morphological feature. He believed this to be the origin of the Article but did not know for sure. He continued by saying that the rule presumably came in at the Brussels Congress [1910] but that its time had gone, and that he was totally in agreement with Gereau.

**Wilson** expressed her concern regarding the ending date set out in the proposal because that was convenient for the authors of the proposal. She was not aware of any case in the *Code* where they had set a finishing date that was retroactive. She thought that the usual thing would be to have an ending date after the date of the IBC, not before the date of the IBC.

**Sennikov** also questioned the end date of the rule. He stated that if the rule was really so ridiculous and unworkable, although he knew of examples which were quite unambiguous and which fell under this rule, then two things should be added to the proposal. First, if the proposal passed, then the names listed in the current Examples would need to go into the list of rejected names; second, it would be reasonable to remove the rule totally and remove the finishing date, the year 2011, in order to roll it back as if the rule had never existed. If some names were an obstacle, they could be added to the list of rejected names. He proposed the extreme solution of formally deleting the Article without any limitation.

**Knapp** asked Sennikov if he was proposing an amendment.

**Sennikov** said, "Yes, apparently unfriendly."

[The **amendment** was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Turland** wanted to say that this would be quite a bold move and it would be difficult for the Rapporteurs to say how much nomenclatural disruption might be caused by names that would become validly published again. He warned that there was a significant potential for unforeseen and unwanted consequences if the Article was deleted. Regarding Sennikov's suggestion that the unwanted consequences, if they existed, could be dealt with by conservation or rejection, he wished to point out that this could mean a lot of work for Committees if there were a lot of cases to deal with.

**May** stated that if the Section was going to go down this track, a list of all the names that were involved would be required so that delegates could see the consequences. He proposed, therefore, just changing the end date to 2011.

**Knapp** reminded May that the Section first had to make a decision on Sennikov's amendment and asked for further comments on deleting the Article.

**Greuter** wished to propose that in order to minimize or reduce the negative effects of deleting the Article, the current Ex. 4 and Ex. 6 of Art. 20 could be voted Examples and could be maintained, so that *Lanceolatus, Lobata, Caulis, Folium, Radix* and *Spina* would no longer have to be dealt with as validly published generic names.

[The **amendment** to Sennikov's **amendment** was considered **friendly**.]

**Knapp** moved the discussion to making all of the Examples voted Examples to minimize disruption.

**Schori** asked how there could be voted Examples for an Article if the Article was deleted.

**Knapp** noted that the Section would be voting on deleting the Article entirely and changing all four of the Examples into voted Examples.

**Monro** pointed out that Greuter had only mentioned Ex. 4 and Ex. 6.

**Turland** stated that Schori had a point. He went on to quote the definition of a voted Example from the Glossary, "An Example denoted by an asterisk in the *Code*, accepted by an IBC in order to govern nomenclatural practice when the corresponding Article is open to divergent interpretation or does not adequately cover the matter. A voted Example is therefore comparable to a rule, as contrasted with other Examples provided by the Editorial Committee solely for illustrative purposes". Turland noted, therefore, that in this case there would be no corresponding Article.

**Sennikov** wished to propose an amendment to the amendment that was proposed by Greuter. He suggested replacing the present Article and making a provision out of the Examples, to rule that words such as those listed in the Examples could not be validly published as generic names. This would incorporate the text of what was already in the *Code* without change.

**Turland** suggested that Sennikov wanted, therefore, to convert the Examples not into voted Examples but into an Article.

**Sennikov** explained that words listed in other Examples could be incorporated into Ex. 6 and converted into the rule in place of the present Art. 20.2.

[The **amendment** to Greuter's **amendment** to Sennikov's **amendment** was considered **friendly**.]

**Barrie** asked what was covered by the "etc." in Ex. 6?

**Turland** wished to make the point that if the Section eventually accepted the "nested amendments" they could be editorially incorporated into Art. 20.4, "The following are not to be regarded as generic names".

**Gereau** stated that all of this now very complicated reasoning ignored the fact that this had been a troublesome Article in the first place. He said it would be tremendously disruptive to get rid of it all together and then deal with all the unknown consequences. Gereau, therefore, suggested that the Section could change the end date if someone found that desirable, but to take the original proposal in the spirit in which it was offered, reject the amendment, give it a reasonable end date and get rid of it.

**Redhead** said that he was now so confused he could not possibly support all the amendments.

**Knapp** clarified what delegates would be voting on. She stated that the vote would be on whether to have an Article containing the following: "Words such as *lanceolatus, lobata, caulis, folium, radix, spina* etc., cannot be validly published as generic names".

**Turland** added that if this was rejected, then the Section would go back to the original proposal.

**Cantrill** thought that all the amendments had been friendly, so wondered if the vote should be to delete Art. 20 and all the amendments that were there.

**Knapp** disagreed, noting that Sennikov had amended his first amendment to delete Art. 20.

**McNeill** questioned whether Art. 20 would still be deleted.

[*There followed some discussion of the procedure*.]

**Knapp** stated that a vote to approve this amendment would result in deleting Art. 20 and replacing it with something like the wording she had given previously.

**Turland** said that there would be a new proposal that would have this wording. **Funk** called the question.

**Knapp** agreed that the discussion was tedious but was not prepared to move to a vote until everyone understood what they were voting on. If something appeared in the *Code* later, she did not want people to say it was not what they voted for.

**Gandhi** said it was still not clear to him if the Section was rejecting the name "*Lanceolatus*", because if someone asked him to define *lanceolatus*…

**Knapp** interrupted, stating that the present discussion was not about the names, it was about the amendment to reject Art. 20.2. Knapp then called for a vote on whether to reject Art. 20.2, which was an unfriendly amendment to Art. 20 Prop. A.

[The **amendment** was **rejected**.]

**May** wished to propose an amendment to the original proposal to change the date of 2011 to "something suitable" like 2018 or 2019.

**Turland** noted that these dates were normally set as 1 January the year after the *Code* was published. He suggested that, unless the Editorial Committee "went under a bus or something", the new *Code* should be published by the middle of 2018. He recommended, therefore, that the date should be 31 December 2018.

**Knapp** pointed out that this would be an unfriendly amendment because the proposer was not in the room.

[The **amendment** was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Saarela** did not understand why it was a problem to add a date that had already occurred, when the *Code* provisions were retroactive once they were passed. He did not see an issue with using 31 December 2011.

**Barrie** was also in favour of keeping the original date. He made the point that anyone who was familiar with Robert Lücking's methods of working would know that he was extremely thorough in checking names. Barrie did not want to think that delegates would be punishing Lücking because he was trying to save a couple of his own names. Barrie thought that 31 December 2011 was a decent date to use and he could see no reason for changing it to 2018.

**Knapp** asked the Rapporteurs to confirm if they had said in their introductory comments that the date that had been chosen coincided with the date at which Latin was no longer required for the diagnosis.

**Turland** confirmed that he had, indeed, said this.

**Knapp** speculated that this was probably part of the reason that the date was chosen.

**Dorr** believed the date was chosen because the names in question were published in 2012 and 2013 and he thought it was merely an effort to save two names, referring to this as "silliness".

**Turland** noted that the Section had already passed a retroactive date, 1 January 2001, when adding the requirement to use the word "*epitypus*" to Art. 9.23, so that "*epitypus*" was required to be cited in an epitypification; adding a retroactive date would not be unprecedented.

**Wiersema** confirmed that this was in Art. 9 Prop. VV, which had been dealt with earlier in the day.

**Knapp** stated that the Section was still discussing the difference in date between 31 December 2018 and 31 December 2011 and asked if there were any more questions.

**Redhead** saw nothing wrong with 31 December 2011 and thought there was a logic to it. He noted that the Section had almost got rid of the "entire thing", so limiting it by accepting the proposal and the dates that were put forward by the proposers made perfect sense to him.

**Cantrill** called the question.

[The Section voted **to vote**.]

[The **amendment** to change the date was **rejected**.]

**Seregin** strongly opposed the proposal. He explained that we lived in the era of databasing, where words meant more than they meant some time ago because we used search engines. He wished to encourage all botanists to leave this Article as it was and not to invent new words which had ambiguous meanings.

**Thiele** pointed out that the proposal as it stood was logically inconsistent: if, after the date of 31 December 2011 the technical terms were allowed, then Ex. 6 would no longer apply and words such as *caulis*, *folium*, etc. would be applicable and perfectly valid as generic names.

**McNeill** stated that if the Section decided to delete an Article, the Editorial Committee would automatically delete any Examples associated with it, so this was not a problem.

**Knapp** interjected, noting that the discussion was not about deleting the Article but about changing it.

**McNeill** corrected himself commenting that if the Article was amended, the Editorial Committee would automatically remove any Examples that were no longer relevant.

**Thiele** accepted McNeill's comment but wanted to point out that all the terms would become perfectly valid [as potential names of genera]. He agreed that the Article was problematic but thought that the alternative, of all those terms being allowable, was equally problematic. The community would not be dealing with obscure terms that would be rendered not validly published names, but with very common terms that would be rendered validly published names.

[The vote by show of hands apparently indicated a majority against the proposal, but nevertheless a **card vote** was requested.]

**Art. 20, Prop. A** was **rejected** based on the **card vote** (173 yes: 348 no; 33.1% yes). [*The Section broke for afternoon tea.*]

**Knapp** welcomed delegates back noting that there was a lot of work to do and warning that she would not let anyone leave at the end of the day until it was finished!

**Art. 20, Prop. B** was deferred for discussion under **Art. 60, Prop. F, Prop. G** and **Prop. H**.

**Art. 20, Prop. C** (2: 0: 64: 0) was **automatically** sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

#### Article 21 and Recommendation 21B

**Art. 21, Prop. A** (29: 18: 20: 0), **Rec. 21B, Prop. A** (27: 22: 17: 0) and **Rec. 21B, Prop. B** (24: 22: 20: 0)

**Turland** stated that these three proposals could be considered as a set and would therefore be discussed together. Art. 32 Prop. B was linked to these proposals but could stand on its own, so would be discussed separately. The core of Art. 21 Prop. A was an editorial change: instead of saying "a plural adjective" it was saying "an adjective in the plural" and, while this was completely editorial, it also added "nominative plural" whereas the grammatical case was not specified in the existing article. The proposal also stated, "or participle used as such". Turland believed some people would argue that a participle and an adjective were essentially the same thing in this context. In summary, he stated that these proposals were very nearly editorial and that the Rapporteurs wondered somewhat why these changes should be made.

**Gereau** proposed that all three proposals be sent to the Editorial Committee, with the recommendation that the phrase "or participle used as such" be deleted by the Editorial Committee.

[The **proposal** was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Art. 21, Prop. A, Rec. 21B, Prop. A** and **Rec. 21B, Prop. B** were sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

[*Note: Art. 21 Prop. A, Rec. 21B Prop. A and Rec. 21B Prop. B were subsequently ruled as rejected by the President owing to their being parallel to Art. 23 Prop. A, which was rejected by the Section – see discussion of Art. 23 Prop. A*.]

**Art. 21, Prop. B** (3: 10: 54: 0) and **Prop. C** (2: 0: 64: 0) were **automatically** sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

**Art. 21, Prop. D** (2: 0: 63: 1) and **Art. 24, Prop. C** (2: 0: 64: 0)

**Turland** noted that these two proposals were editorial and offered clearer wording of Art. 21.4 for subdivisional epithets and Art. 24.4 for specific epithets. He proposed that they be sent to the Editorial Committee.

[The **proposal** was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Art. 21, Prop. D** and **Art. 24, Prop. C** were sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

**Rec. 21B, Prop. A** and **Prop. B** were discussed under **Art. 21 Prop. A**.

### Article 23

**Art. 23, Prop. A** (23: 27: 14: 0)

**Turland** believed that this was very similar to the proposals that had been sent to the Editorial Committee on a proposal from Gereau; therefore, he proposed it too be sent to the Editorial Committee.

[The **proposal** was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Greuter** wanted to make sure that the Rapporteur-général was confident that these were purely editorial changes. If they were sent to the Editorial Committee and turned out not to be simply editorial, he asked that they not be considered as being accepted changes to the meaning of the *Code*.

**Turland** checked the Rapporteurs' comments for the proposal, noting that whereas the Rapporteurs could think of no adjectival or subdivisional epithets that were not nominative, they did think of *Wollemia nobilis* where the adjective could be a genitive adjective. In this case the nominative form was also *nobilis* so it would accord with the revised Art. 23.1. This was not really a concrete case of something that would be disrupted by the proposed change. Turland then suggested that the proposal was not purely editorial because it specified the nominative for the adjective, which was not currently specified. He therefore decided that it was safer to **withdraw** his **proposal** to send it to the Editorial Committee.

**Sennikov** pointed out that if the Section voted on this particular case then the previous set of proposals (Art. 21 Prop. A, Rec. 21B Prop. A and B) would have to be further discussed as they were totally parallel.

**Schori** pointed out that as most people no longer studied Latin, and fewer places offered to teach it, she thought it was helpful to provide this clarification, especially for people who were new to describing names.

**Garland**, who used to write Latin descriptions as a side business, explained that in Latin there were different cases for different usages of words in a sentence. If someone was using a word that would normally be a name, in a case other than the nominative, would that mean that they were not using a name anymore? He wondered what the status of a species name would be in a Latin description, as the only name would be in the nominative. For instance, would a name that was published in the 1800s, which was not in the nominative case, still be a name?

**Turland** believed this would be correctable because Art. 32.2 allowed an incorrect Latin termination to be corrected without change to place of valid publication and date.

**Garland** argued that in Latin it could be completely correct, it would just be used for instance in the ablative case and that would not be an incorrect termination in the sentence structure. However, it would not be considered to be a name.

**Turland** noted that Art. 32 Prop. B addressed this by proposing to put a note into Art. 32, "Improper terminations of otherwise correctly formed names or epithets may result from the use of an inflectional form other than that required by Art. 32.2." This addressed the issue, for example, where a name appeared in the accusative or ablative in a sentence. Turland noted that this would be discussed later.

**Lindon** referred to an example of a German text that included the name *Victoria Amazonum*. As this was not in the nominative case, she asked if it would have to be corrected to the nominative or accepted as it was spelled.

**Greuter** was worried by the addition of the specification "in the nominative". He believed that in the *Code* there was an example, *Gloeosporium balsameae*, which was an adjective in the genitive. He believed it was too restrictive to say that an adjective used in an epithet must be in the nominative. He also thought that adding "participle" as separate from "adjective" did not make much sense, as participles were grammatically adjectives.

**Turland** agreed that the addition of the word "nominative" might be restrictive. In most cases the adjectival epithets would be nominative but there may be a few cases where they were not, and it was not known how many there were. It could potentially, and unnecessarily, cause problems.

**Sennikov** had checked the example of *Gloeosporium* in the *Code*, under Art. 23 Ex. 6, and explained that it referred to the case when an adjective was treated as a noun. Therefore, it was not relevant for this particular provision: this discussion was about plant name epithets that were real adjectives, not adjectives treated as nouns.

**Art. 23, Prop. A** was **rejected**.

**Knapp** then used her Chair's prerogative to rule that **Art. 21 Prop. A, Rec. 21B Prop. A and Rec. 21B Prop. B**, which had been sent to the Editorial Committee with similar, parallel wording, were also now to be rejected.

**Applequist** raised a point of order that while these proposals were not particularly useful, she did not think that Knapp could reject them and overrule the Section's vote.

**Knapp** disagreed, stating that the Chair's prerogative allowed her to go back and reject proposals if they were equivalent to any proposal that had just been discussed and rejected.

**Art. 21, Prop. A, Rec. 21B, Prop. A** and **Rec. 21B, Prop. B** were ruled as **rejected** [*see above*].

# **Art. 23, Prop. B** (13: 45: 6: 0)

**Turland** explained that this was a rephrasing of Art. 23.1 adding the words "the epithet be written with an initial lower-case letter", which would become a rule.

**Gereau** remembered the Rapporteurs' comment that the intention was good. It would be good to have all specific epithets written in lower case. However, as written, it presented the danger of making numerous already published names not validly published. He could see nothing in the proposal to alleviate that danger, so he strongly opposed the proposal.

#### **Art. 23, Prop. B** was **rejected**.

**Art. 23, Prop. C** (10: 36: 18: 0) was contingent on **Art. 23, Prop. B** and was therefore **automatically rejected**.

# **Art. 23, Prop. D** (51: 1: 24: 0)

**Wiersema** noted that this proposal, of which he was an author, was put together with the idea of achieving some standardization in the treatment of the terminations of transcribed Greek epithets. In forming the proposal, they restricted their survey to just Linnaean epithets based on Greek stems. Usage was mixed in the original combinations as well as in combinations where the specific epithet had been transferred to another genus. However, the majority had preserved the Greek termination, which is why they opted to make the choice they did, and then allow that to be preserved when it was published and when it was transferred to another genus. There were a set of proposals to achieve this, not only with specific epithets but also infraspecific epithets. It was written into Art. 32.2 and then carried out in the Articles dealing with specific epithets (Art. 23) and infraspecific epithets (Art. 24). In summary, there was mixed usage and this proposal was an effort to achieve standardization in usage.

**Gereau** applauded the authors for finally making explicit what had been implicit in the *Code*. It had been very difficult to justify in terms of Art. 60.1, as it was not in the checklist of things that could be changed, so implicitly one would have to leave Greek epithets Greek. This proposal made it quite explicit. It was a technical term that not many people would care about, but it was greatly in need of standardization. Gereau stated that he was tremendously in favour of it. He proposed a friendly amendment that a sentence could be added in Art. 23.5 to simply say explicitly that epithets with transcribed Greek adjectival terminations were to remain Greek when transferred to another genus. It did not quite say so in so many words, and this was such unfamiliar territory to many users that it might be useful to make an explicit sentence to that effect. Otherwise he had no comment other than "congratulations".

**Wiersema** had no problem with Gereau's suggestion.

**Turland** did not think it was necessary and felt it was a little overly prescriptive. He thought that the Examples made it clear and an explicit sentence would not need to be added to the rule.

**Gereau** was perfectly happy to leave it to the discretion of the Editorial Committee, so withdrew his amendment.

**Garland** was curious as to how the proposal related to Principle V in Div. I where it said, "Scientific names of taxonomic groups are treated as Latin regardless of their derivation". It seemed to him people had treated scientific names as Latin or Greek regardless of their derivation.

**Wiersema** noted that there were several references in the *Code* to the use of transcribed Greek words, and Rec. 60G.1(a), which was enforced by Art. 60.8, prescribed using the Greek connecting vowel or the transcribed Greek connecting vowel *-o-* in certain situations when dealing with Greek words. It had been acknowledged in other places in the *Code* that transcribed Greek words were involved.

**Garland** noted that he supported the amendment, but it seemed inconsistent with the general principles.

**Gandhi** mentioned that quite a long time ago Dan Nicolson had suggested that he preferred Greek terms for generic names and Latin terms for epithets, but Gandhi admitted that such a practice was not universally acknowledged. For maintaining consistency within IPNI and for *Flora of North America* and for *Flora of India*, Gandhi had been practising the same principle that was shown on the screen. When Wiersema came up with this idea, Gandhi was willing to be a co-author.

#### **Art. 23, Prop. D** was **accepted**.

# **Art. 32, Prop. A** (54: 1: 10: 0) [*Discussed out of sequence*.]

**Wiersema** noted that this proposal provided the basis for the changes in Art. 23. The current Art. 32.2 referred to these other Articles, but because some did not apply to names at specific rank and below, they could not just add the species part into the Article, so they split it into two parts. In other words, to make it clear which other Articles were relevant to names at particular ranks, they split the Article into two parts.

**Redhead** noted that there were French-ending "names" and he wondered if they were not correctable if they were considered to be Latinized, for example Art. 18 Ex. 10.

**Wiersema** pointed out that names published with French endings were not names at all because they were not validly published. However, this proposal was dealing with names that were defined in the *Code* as being validly published. Those not validly published would not be names in the sense of the *Code*.

**Greuter** wanted to draw the attention of the Editorial Committee to the fact that, in his opinion at least, epithets had no rank: they were "names" or "epithets in names" above the rank of species.

**Art. 32, Prop. A** was **accepted**.

#### **Art. 23, Prop. E** (21: 1: 56: 0) was **automatically** sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

**Art. 23, Prop. F** (13: 46: 4: 0), **Prop. G** (19: 37: 6: 1) and **Prop. H** (16: 36: 11: 0)

**Turland** noted that these three proposals formed a group. If Prop. F were to be rejected, the Note of Prop. G would be redundant. Prop. H would go straight to the Editorial Committee as an Example but would be contingent on Prop. F being accepted.

**Hawksworth** stated that it would be very unsatisfactory for mycologists to reverse the decision over the -*icola* ending that was widely used in mycology and had been corrected repeatedly.

**Art. 23, Prop. F** was **rejected** and **Prop. G** and **Prop. H** were **automatically rejected**.

# **Art. 23, Prop. I** (25: 31: 8: 0)

**Turland** had made a note to the effect that if the clause "or participle used as such" was excluded from the previous proposals in Art. 21 and Art. 23, then this proposal should also be rejected. As this was the case, he suggested that this proposal should be automatically rejected.

# **Art. 23, Prop. I** was **automatically rejected**.

# **Art. 23, Prop. J** (52: 6: 5: 0)

**McNeill** explained that this had arisen from the fact that many works long recognized as not using Linnaean binomials, not adopting Linnaeus's *nomina triviale*, instead used *nomina specifica legitima*. Those were the phrase names that were universal pre-Linnaeus, and which continued in use extensively after 1753. From time to time these works reduced their phrase names to two words: the generic name and one adjective. These names had originally been ruled out by a clause in the *Code* [see Art. 23.6(c) of the Berlin *Code*, 1988], but this clause had been changed at the Tokyo Congress [1993]. It had not been intended that these names should suddenly become legitimate and validly published. The current proposal would determine what works did not adopt the binomial system of Linnaean nomenclature by looking at the extent of the predominant usage in them. McNeill felt that the wording was clear as were the Examples.

**Mabberley** commented that he had spent quite a lot of time going through *The Gardeners Dictionary* […*abridged*, ed. 4. 1754]. Most of the "accidental binomials" in this work were generally not coined by Miller, but were binomials taken from pre-Linnaean works.

**Art. 23, Prop. J** was **accepted**.

**Art. 23, Prop. K** (39: 6: 18: 0)

**Turland** noted that this proposal was almost editorial if Prop. J was accepted, although he hesitated to say that something "almost editorial" be sent to the Editorial Committee. He felt that the Section should probably vote on it, but it was logical to accept it as Prop. J had just been accepted.

**Art. 23, Prop. K** was **accepted**.

#### Recommendation 23A

**Rec. 23A, Prop. A** (13: 30: 22: 0)

**Turland** explained that this Recommendation proposed a change in terminology, replacing "attributing" with "crediting", because the proposers preferred to reserve the

term "attribution" for the authorship that was treated as correct under the rules for a name. They preferred to use "crediting" when this was not the case. Turland supposed this would depend on whether the Section felt there should be such a distinction in terminology in the *Code*.

**McNeill** asked Sennikov why he adopted "crediting" rather than "ascribing", which was what was used in Art. 46 for a situation that was not the correct attribution.

**Sennikov** explained that this was only part of a large package of several proposals and he consistently tried to make a distinction between when a certain name was attributed to somebody in the protologue and when it was attributed to somebody after the protologue. In the first case he thought it would be appropriate to say that somebody was credited with this name and then attribution would be reserved for other cases. He had tried to make a distinction in terminology concerning the modern interpretation of authorship and the interpretation of the original author.

**Knapp** explained to Sennikov that the question was why he had not used the term "ascribe", as used in Art. 46.

**Sennikov** replied that he was not quite ready to say at that point.

**Wilson** noted that Art. 6 Prop. F had already been sent to the Editorial Committee and wondered if this proposal should also be referred.

**Turland** said that Art. 6 Prop. F concerned an Example, so was automatically sent to the Editorial Committee, and the Section did not actually discuss it. He said that whatever the Section decided on the present proposal would impact the earlier Example. If the present proposal was rejected, then that earlier Example would not go to the Editorial Committee. If the present proposal was accepted, the earlier Example would go to the Editorial Committee.

**McNeill** proposed that, as Sennikov was not yet able to answer, the best solution would be to refer the proposal to the Editorial Committee.

[The **proposal** was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Rec. 23A, Prop. A** was sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

#### Article 24

**Art. 24, Prop. A** (56: 1: 21: 0)

**Wiersema** noted that this proposal dealt with intraspecific epithets, in harmony with what the Section had already accepted for specific epithets with Greek terminations. It was a cross-reference to the provision dealing with specific epithets.

**Schori** pointed out that cross-references tended to be editorial, therefore she proposed to refer this to the Editorial Committee.

[The **proposal** was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Art. 24, Prop. A** was sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

**Art. 24, Prop. B** (55: 2: 6: 0)

**Turland** drew the Section's attention to the positive mail vote for this proposal. Two Examples were included which, if the proposal were to be accepted, would automatically be sent to the Editorial Committee.

**Applequist** wished to propose a friendly amendment to delete the word "when". She thought that the present wording simply declared that all such epithets purported to indicate the taxon containing the type of the species and that they were not validly published. The inclusion of "when" grammatically meant that unless the publication explicitly stated that it contained the type then it was validly published. Many of these names were published before the type method existed.

**Knapp** asked if Applequist's amendment was to change "when purporting" to "that purport"?

**Applequist** replied in the negative, because all these epithets were treated as purporting to contain the type even though they were published before the type method existed. She said that if just the word "when" was deleted it would be okay.

**Greuter** considered the **amendment unfriendly** because there were clear cases in which use of *originalis* etc. was not purporting to indicate the taxon containing the type of the name of the next higher rank taxon.

**Turland** agreed with Greuter and remembered when they were editing the proposal that the inclusion of "when" was quite deliberate.

[The **amendment** was not supported by **five seconders**.]

**Art. 24, Prop. B** was **accepted**.

**Art. 24, Prop. C** was discussed under **Art. 21, Prop. D**.

### Article 28

**Art. 28, Prop. A** (48: 7: 11: 0) and **Prop. B** (9: 2: 53: 1)

**Turland** pointed out that this Article sought to bring Art. 28 Note 4 into accord with the *International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants* (*ICNCP*) so that it read: "An epithet in a name published in conformity with this *Code* may be retained in a name for that taxon under the rules of the *ICNCP* when it is considered appropriate to treat the taxon concerned under that *Code*." Turland proposed that this be sent to the Editorial Committee to check that the proposed new wording was indeed in accord with the *ICNCP.*

**Knapp** commented that in a discussion between the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, the Natural History Museum (London) and the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS), the people at the RHS were extremely concerned about this proposal.

**Govaerts** agreed that the RHS were very concerned with the Example, which was incorrect and should not be adopted under any circumstances, but they were very happy to have that wording of the Note.

**Knapp** confirmed for the Section that it was the Example that the RHS objected to, not the Note.

**Turland** therefore proposed that Art. 28 Prop. A be sent to the Editorial Committee, which would ensure that Note 4 was indeed brought into accord with the latest edition of the *ICNCP*.

**McNeill** asked if there was any business of this proposal being in "our *Code*" at all. It seemed to him to be advising people what to do under the *ICNCP* and he did not think it should be included in the *Code*.

**Wiersema** noted that the Note had been in the *Code* for quite some time.

**Turland** agreed that the proposal was not relevant to the *Code* and asked McNeill if he was proposing to delete the Note as an amendment to the proposal.

**Knapp** asked Turland if this meant he was withdrawing his proposal to send it to the Editorial Committee.

**Turland** stated that the Editorial Committee could determine whether or not the Note was irrelevant to the *Code* and simply delete it, because it was a Note. A Note was supposed to make an implicit or explicit provision elsewhere in the *Code* more obvious. McNeill's point was that it did not actually refer to anything else in this *Code*.

**McNeill** agreed but had less objection to the existing wording than he had to the proposed wording. The existing wording was making a statement of fact, whereas the wording in the proposal had an element of almost recommendation that some of "our epithets" should be used and it did not seem to be relevant.

**Turland** confirmed that he was withdrawing the proposal to refer this to the Editorial Committee and suggested the Section vote on the original proposal.

**Greuter** stated that he seconded the proposal by McNeill to delete the current Note 4.

**Knapp** stated that the Section would now debate whether or not to accept the proposal to delete Note 4 in Art. 28.

**Thiele** was confused because the Section were now being asked to accept an amendment which utterly reversed the proposal. He thought that the Section should just vote on the proposal.

**Knapp** agreed that this made more sense and noted that McNeill was now withdrawing his proposal to delete Note 4.

**Malécot** pointed out that the wording of Art. 28 Prop. A and B was the same as that in the current edition of the *ICNCP*.

**Knapp** thanked Malécot and invited Govaerts to speak, warning him not to discuss the Example. [*Laughter*]

**Govaerts** stated that he very much supported the proposal, because it brought the wording into conformity with the *ICNCP*. He also thought it was very important to have the Note there, because there was often great confusion on whether to use a scientific name or a cultivar name, or whether to use a scientific name for a cultivar.

**Art. 28, Prop. A** was **rejected** and **Prop. B** was **automatically** sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

Article 29

#### **Art. 29, Prop. A** (35: 28: 2: 0).

**Turland** noted that the Section had now crossed over into effective publication. Prop. A would introduce a new requirement for effective publications starting from 1 January 2019. The publication must have an ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) or an ISBN (an International Standard Book Number). Turland had heard some concern that this might be problematic in some countries, where issuing ISBNs or ISSNs was strictly controlled by the government, so that the scientists who were publishing names did not have any control over whether or not they could have an ISBN for their publication. However, the thrust of the proposal was to exclude a lot of ephemeral or so-called grey publications.

**Seregin** had a question for Turland regarding how to deal with the case of false or incomplete ISSNs or ISBNs. He had come across a provisional ISSN in a book with "empty digits" at the end of this code. Undoubtedly there was an ISSN, but it was incomplete.

**Turland** replied that if a publication had an incomplete ISSN or ISBN it might simply be due to a typographical error, but it might still have been registered correctly. If an ISSN or ISBN was demonstrably false, however, then it would not have an ISSN or ISBN and would therefore not be effectively published.

**Seregin** asked if this would be after the date of 1 January 2019.

**Turland** confirmed that it would be after the date and noted that it already applied to electronic publications in the *Code* and that it was not an entirely new concept.

**Gereau** thought that like some other proposals, this one was overly prescriptive of specific mechanisms over which the *Code* had no control. It might be desirable but was not appropriate.

**Sennikov** said that he knew of cases where publishers provided false ISBNs, but that these were not demonstrably false. Such numbers might refer to a book published a year earlier by the same publisher who just recycled the number. The authors who published with such a publisher would be penalized for something that was out of their control. He added that this practice was embraced in some countries with a very low level of control in the publishing business.

**Groom** stated that ISSN and ISBN were international standards and although the *Code* did not control them, they were a very solid base from which to start. He argued that other standards were accepted within the *Code*, so he did not have a problem about using these numbers. He believed they were good standards that were internationally controlled and could be relied upon in the future.

**Thiele** understood that the intent of this proposal was to bring consistency between electronic publication and paper publication. Currently, electronic publication required an ISSN or ISBN, but paper publication did not. Many of the objections that had been raised to ISSNs and ISBNs for paper publication also applied to electronic publication. He supported the consistency that this proposal was attempting to bring and thought if delegates objected to it, the Section would need to deal with the same issues under electronic publication unless these issues applied only to paper publication, which he was not convinced about.

**Applequist** replied that the issue of electronic publication was that when a "flyby-night" electronic publication disappeared, all trace of it was gone, whereas books did not evaporate off the shelves. The Section had heard that for people in some parts of the world, it could be very difficult to get an ISBN, or they may think they had one when they did not. She thought that delegates from privileged parts of the world ought to take that objection seriously.

**Freire-Fierro** wondered how easy it would be in Latin American countries, for example, to obtain an ISSN or ISBN.

**Groom** said it basically came down to whether or not the Section wanted people publishing in journals that nobody could get hold of. They might be very small print runs and they may disappear off the shelves in the future. That was why this clause was added in the first place.

**Marhold** stated that people should be strongly discouraged from publishing in grey literature.

**Greuter** had two comments. The first was a technical one, that there were two dates proposed as starting dates for proposals: after 31 December 2018, which the Section had already accepted, and now on or after 1 January 2019. He urged that these dates be consistent within the *Code*. Secondly, he believed that distinct numbers were required for electronic and printed publications. He wondered what would happen if an electronic publication, for lack of attention to those rules, used "abusively" the ISSN or ISBN of the printed publication, which was already attributed to a printed book. Would these then be false ISBNs and ISSNs?

**Hawksworth** did not think delegates should underestimate the difficulty that some authors might have in obtaining an ISSN. He noted that in the previous week a senior Chinese mycologist, who already published a journal, had asked him for help to start a new journal, primarily because it would be relatively easy for Hawksworth to get an ISSN and it would be incredibly difficult in China. Hawksworth was, therefore, against the proposal.

**Kirk** thought that delegates were conflating two issues: the availability of the numbers, and the permanence of electronic publications or other ephemeral ink-on-paper publications. In defence of electronic publications, he stated that he was involved with one that went into a digital archive, which, short of World War III, would still survive. Hawksworth had alluded to a scenario where, if in countries where these numbers were difficult to obtain, it would be possible to have a partner in a country where they were easy to obtain, a bit like the rich people who have offshore bank accounts.

**Knapp** asked if Kirk had one of those.

**Kirk** refused to answer the question: "I'll take the Fifth Amendment." [*Laughter*] **Art. 29, Prop. A** was **rejected**.

#### **Rec. 29A, Prop. A** (57: 14: 1: 0)

**Turland** stated that this proposal, made by the President and himself, sought deletion of what they considered to be an unrealistic Recommendation. They considered that the *Code* should recommend realistically and that it was questionable whether libraries would curate what were essentially reprints. Authors would still be free to deposit printed copies in libraries if they wished. They felt that this was something the *Code* should not be recommending, and they proposed its deletion.

**Fortunato** noted that for electronic data, four repositories were recommended and noted, for example, that the genetic sequence data in GenBank were stored in four repositories.

### **Rec. 29A, Prop. A** was **accepted**.

#### Article 30

**Art. 30, Prop. A** (10: 54: 1: 0) was **rejected** based on the **mail vote**.

**Turland** noted that a number of proposals on Art. 30 had been automatically rejected in the mail vote, including Art. 30 Prop. A and Prop. B.

**Redhead** however, wished to reintroduce Art. 30 Prop. A so that one of the issues in it could be discussed.

[The **proposal** was supported by **five seconders** and was **reintroduced** for discussion.]

**Sennikov** had written to a friend in Lund telling him that this proposal had failed in the mail vote and that now they would be in great trouble. Numerous exchange catalogues published in Lund in Sweden had on the title page a statement "Printed as manuscript" in the Swedish language. They had always considered that these manuscripts were not effectively published. These manuscripts all had authorships of scientific names and many new combinations. If the proposal was reintroduced Sennikov would be extremely happy to skip this sort of literature.

**Redhead** wished to amend the proposals because the Rapporteurs had noted that the Examples were somewhat nebulous. He wanted to change the wording of the first part [of Art. 30.1*bis*] to "Distribution of printed matter does not constitute effective publication if there is evidence within the work that…", then replace the rest of the wording with "…the printed matter was not intended to be formally published when distributed". He also wished to replace the Example with "Raithelhuber in 1981 distributed typeset sample pages of a proposed book, *Die Gattung Clitocybe*, that included several taxonomic novelties. The book was never published and therefore none of the proposed 'names' were effectively published".

[The **amendment** was accepted as **friendly**.]

**Struwe** wished to point out that "Printed as manuscript" in Swedish did not necessarily mean that it was printed for publication in Swedish. She disagreed with the suggestion that people would have to go to Lund universities and look for every work containing "Printed as manuscript". From a Swedish point of view, it did not necessarily mean at all that it was printed or published.

**Geltman** wished to clarify the situation with the proposed Example because it was a practice used in Russia for dissertations. A summary of the dissertation may be issued, but there was a clear indication on the title page that it had been printed "On the right of manuscript". He thought that in such cases another provision of the *Code* could be applied to rule that such issues were not effectively published.

**Wilson** asked if Art. 30.8 already covered this situation, at least for a thesis.

**Wiersema** noted that Art. 30.8 had a date, and asked whether these cases were before 1953.

**Wilson** admitted to forgetting the date issue but noted that Redhead's Example did not concern a thesis and would not be covered by Art. 30.8. If this proposal were to be accepted, she wondered if it should be placed around Art. 30.8.

**Turland** said he was having a hard time discerning the difference in meaning between "not intended for effective publication" and "not intended to be formally published when distributed". He wondered what "formally published" meant and whether it was different from "effectively published". He was worried that if this wording were to be added to the *Code* it was not necessarily defined. He asked Redhead what he meant by "formally published".

**Redhead** explained that he had worded it that way because he did not think the printer or even the author was thinking about effectively publishing it. He was thinking more about a formal publication of a taxonomic work. In his Example, the pages were supposed to demonstrate what was in the books, and he did not think there was ever an intent, in the distribution of advertising samples, to formally publish new taxonomic entities in them: the intent was for them to appear in the book.

**Levin** felt that there was an important issue here and the Section was agonizing a bit about the exact way to express it. He hoped that delegates would vote on the proposal and, if passed, the Editorial Committee could continue the agonizing in order to figure out how to exactly express what the Section was trying to get at.

**McNeill** wished to pose a question to people who knew more than he did about distribution of pre-publication proofs and sample pages in the 19th century. He seemed to remember that from time to time in advertising books, people would distribute some pages that would include names of new taxa. He believed these had been accepted and wondered if there was a view as to whether this could be disruptive for some earlier works, quite apart from the Example that the Section was talking about.

**Schori** answered that this would not just be disruptive for earlier works. There were some Swedish works that contained a synopsis of papers that were produced from a dissertation. There would be a circular citation where it would say "on page such and such of this paper, which is going to be published, this name appears", but the combination was made there. It would affect some more recent names, in terms of the date and place of publication.

**Knapp** asked if any of her American colleagues knew about the publications of Harold St. John, all of which were produced in manuscript form and distributed individually to libraries.

**Funk** said that everybody accepted the manuscripts [as being effectively published] and had been using them for years. She noted that a lot of them were just "junk", but people still dealt with them.

**Mabberley** pointed out that there was a striking example in the 19th century that would be affected if this proposal were to be accepted: Lewis Dillwyn's *A Review of the References to the Hortus Malabaricus of Henry van Rheede van Draakenstein* [1839], which provided lots of names for Indian plants, because Dillwyn stated that this work was for private distribution.

**Knapp** drew attention to the time and suggested that the proposal be put aside until first thing the following morning. [A show of hands demonstrated that everyone agreed.] She stated that the meeting was closed for the day, with the exception of an announcement that the Permanent Nomenclature Committee Secretaries or Chairs should see Funk on their way out. Knapp then read out instructions for delegates regarding the evening's entertainment, which included a tea concert at the conference venue.

### **Wednesday, 19th July 2017, Morning Session**

**Knapp** began the session with some announcements, reminding attendees to fill in comment slips or to send them by e-mail with "Comment" in the subject line to distinguish them from suggestions. She also announced that Funk and Greuter were thinking about an *ad hoc* committee to address the issues around Art. 20 Prop. A: generic names coinciding with terms used in morphology. Anyone wishing to participate should see either of those people during the lunch break.

She then began the official proceedings by reopening discussion on Art. 30 Prop. A, which had been postponed in the previous session.

#### Article 30 (continued)

#### **Art. 30, Prop. A** (continued)

**Redhead** informed the Section that after a sober second thought and having heard concerns at the end of the previous day, he wished to amend his emendation slightly and after "the printed matter", add in "on or after 1 January 1953". That change put the wording in parallel with Art. 30.4, Art. 30.6, Art. 30.7 and Art. 30.8, all of which had that date. He hoped this might alleviate some of the concerns expressed.

**Knapp** suggested that since this was an amendment to Redhead's own amendment, it should be counted as friendly.

**Sennikov** pointed out that in the rush of the previous evening there had been some misunderstandings. When Redhead had proposed his correction, Sennikov was not aware of the Example Redhead had in mind, and it was totally against the intention of Sennikov's proposal. The change now proposed by Redhead was a different matter and so should be treated as an **unfriendly amendment**.

**McNeill** stated that if Sennikov was now saying that the amendment was no longer friendly, Sennikov's original proposal need not be discussed because it had received more than 75% "no" votes. Secondly, McNeill thought this was an example of a bad practice of changing the *Code* to deal with one special case. If the publication by Raithelhuber was a problem, then there was a provision for suppression of individual works. Even if the date was changed to 1953, which removed some of the works that he was concerned about, other situations could arise after that. The general principle in the *Code* was that no matter what a person said, if the work was effectively published, it was effectively published.

**Redhead withdrew** both of his **amendments** to Art. 30 Prop. A.

**Knapp** pointed out that the Example, if passed, would be dealt with by the Editorial Committee.

**Sennikov** apologized for the confusion. He added that the proposal was not about a rare case. It related to works printed by a commercial publisher with a disclaimer that they were not intended for effective publication. The works met all criteria for effective publication but, because of this disclaimer, people had taken them as not effectively published without any nomenclatural effect. This was common practice in Russia, Finland and Sweden. The phrase "Printed as manuscript", was a translation from Swedish, but the Russian version had the same effect. If the proposal was accepted, it would fix the status quo for both nomenclatural and bibliographic purposes. However, if the proposal failed, it would bring such printed matter under consideration for nomenclatural novelties.

**Gereau** raised a point of order that the proposal had already been ruled as rejected in the mail vote and could not be discussed further without a proposal for it to be considered with corresponding seconders.

**Knapp** pointed out that Redhead had resurrected this proposal with five seconders, and once the proposal was resurrected it was on the floor again. Now that Redhead had withdrawn his amendments the original proposal was under discussion again.

**Middleton** asked Sennikov if he had applied to suppress these works and if not, why not?

**Sennikov** answered that there were hundreds of publications in Russian and some dozens in Finland and Sweden. The titles were easy to trace from libraries in Russia, but although they were less numerous in Sweden and Finland, they were harder to trace because they were scarce.

**De Lange** called the question.

[The Section voted **to vote**.]

**Art. 30, Prop. A** was **rejected**.

**Art. 30, Prop. B** (10: 54: 0: 2) and **Prop. C** (8: 56: 0: 2) were **rejected** based on the **mail vote**.

# **Art. 30, Prop. D** (59: 8: 4: 1) and **Prop. I** (52: 10: 7: 1)

**Turland** moved to Art. 30 Prop. D, which sought to clearly establish that the content of an electronic publication must not be preliminary for that publication to be effective. "Content" was defined later, in Art. 30 Prop. I, so Turland suggested if the Section were to accept Prop. I, then Prop. D could be logically accepted, but if Prop. I was rejected it would not make much sense to accept Prop. D. Therefore, he suggested discussing Art. 30 Prop. I first, because it established what was meant by "content".

[The **motion** to discuss **Prop. I** first was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Turland** introduced the proposal to convert the current Art. 30 Note 2 into an Article to define what was content and what was not, to avoid some of the uncertainty regarding "online-first" or "fast track" or "issue in progress": electronic articles which were published ahead of an electronic issue of a journal. Although final versions, they sometimes had preliminary paginations. The final pagination was added when the issue of the journal was compiled and when the publishers wanted to arrange the articles in a particular order. Page numbers were covered by a Note in the *Code* but this proposal would make it explicit by converting the Note into an Article.

**Herendeen** thought the Article would make it clear that online early publications were effective, even ones that later came out in print. Sometimes there were months between a paper appearing online and in print.

**Kusber** thought it important to exclude linked material because it was important for editors and reviewers not to put nomenclatural acts in supplemental material which had no ID.

**McNeill** thought the Article was important and he supported it, but wondered why the word "watermark", which appeared in the previous Note, was not repeated.

**Turland** could not remember a specific reason for removing the word, and thought it could go back in. He thought the proposers did not feel it was important.

**Malécot** wondered if there was a problem with the full and direct reference in Art. 41.5: when making a combination you must cite the basionym with a full and direct reference including page number. If the in-press version lacked a page number, but the printed or the final version online had both a volume and page number, how should a basionym be cited?

**Turland** pointed out that this was covered in the *Code* and was no different to print publications that lacked pagination. One would either cite the preliminary page number or, if it were not paginated, one could put a page number in square brackets, or say that it was not paginated.

**Malécot** responded that someone may consider later that the combination was not validly published because the full and direct reference was ambiguous and contained two page numbers, one in the in-press version and one in the final one. If the in-press version was not available in the future, there would be no possibility of checking the original.

**Turland** asked if this would be a correctable error under Art. 41.6.

**Kirk** confirmed that it was a correctable error, and that there were instances of effective publications that did not have page numbers. He pointed out that the Rapporteur-général was correct to say you could place the calculated page number in square brackets, like an editorial comment.

**Gandhi** explained that he was frequently asked whether a publication was effective if there were no volume or page numbers. This proposal solved such problems.

**Wilson** remembered something in the *Melbourne Code* regarding pagination for online publications that had no page numbers, saying that you should just count the number of pages and put this in square brackets. She could only now find Ex. 1 under Rec. 30A where a Kartesz publication had [1] for the page number.

**Lindon** said that Emma Williams had submitted a proposal for this Section to address that very issue – calculating pages in square brackets to make it absolutely clear that this was an acceptable way to cite them.

**Tong** suggested a friendly amendment to include the word "may", as in "but it may exclude volume, issue and page numbers; it may also exclude external sources", to expand its usefulness and cover cases where a work might have page numbers.

**Turland** said including the word "may" implied that the content in some cases did and in some cases did not exclude page numbers and this would dilute the intent of the proposal. It would then be possible to argue that page numbers were part of the content and that online-first articles with preliminary pagination were not effectively published. He did not regard this as a friendly amendment.

**Knapp** asked if there were five seconders of the amendment to insert the word "may".

[The **amendment** was not supported by **five seconders**.]

**Groom** made an editorial comment that "hyperlink or URL" could be replaced by "URI" [Uniform Resource Identifier], as it covered both.

**Saarela** wished to make a friendly amendment to say "but it excludes volume, issue, article numbers and page numbers", because some electronic journals only provided numbers for their articles.

[This was **accepted** as a **friendly amendment**.]

**Soreng** suggested that the content should include the DOI in order to ensure that preliminary content could always be accessed.

**Knapp** argued that a DOI was an external link and, therefore, she did not consider the amendment to be friendly.

**Turland** stated that a DOI in this case would be equivalent to volume, issue, article, and page numbers, but as it was also an external link, he would prefer not to include it. He did not consider the amendment to be friendly.

**Knapp** asked if there were five seconders for Soreng's amendment.

[The **amendment** was not supported by **five seconders**].

**Levin** wished to know why this proposal pertained only to electronic publications, noting that similar issues regarding changes in page numbers occurred in print publications. He thought the proposal could apply more broadly.

**Turland** agreed but noted that extending the proposal to include print publications may lead to unforeseen and unwanted consequences.

**Art. 30, Prop. I** was **accepted as amended**.

**Turland** moved the discussion back to **Art. 30 Prop. D**, to establish that it was the content, as defined in Prop. I, of an electronic publication that must not be preliminary for the publication to be effective. Art. 30.2 in the *Melbourne Code* talked about preliminary versions, but this had now been narrowed down to the content being preliminary.

**Greuter** was concerned that this might throw into question the current *Dracula* Example. Although "content" was now defined to mean something in particular, the issue with the *Dracula* paper was that the format of the content was not in the definitive form. If the *Code* now just said "content" and thereby meant the substance of the article, this change would unduly widen the coverage. He suggested this could be taken care of by a friendly amendment, changing "content" to "content and layout" or "content and format", whatever the Editorial Committee considered best.

**Turland** considered it **friendly**, although he noted that "layout" would also need to be defined.

**Wilson** argued for keeping "format" because the *Dracula* Example under Art. 30 Note 1 [Ex. 5] used the term "format" as an argument for not accepting that paper.

**Dorr** was concerned with the choice of words for "evidence within or associated with the publication", as elsewhere only "internal evidence" was used. He wondered at the parameters of "associated with the publication".

**Turland** explained that the wording was added at the Melbourne Congress [2011]. In this context, "associated with" meant information on the website that was serving the paper, not actually within the publication or in the PDF. For example, the table of contents or the list of articles in that issue.

**Knapp** pointed out that this was already in the *Code* and was not part of the change proposed.

**Thiele** worried about the term "format" because it was increasingly used to refer to publications in electronic format. He thought it was gaining a broader meaning than merely page layout and this might become confusing in future as the meaning solidified.

**Knapp** noted that the proposal as amended was to use the word that the Editorial Committee felt was best, and she was sure that they would investigate that: "heaven forbid that the *Code* would keep up with modern English usage."

**Garland** commented that "content" should be replaced wherever it appeared with "content and format".

**Turland** stated that would be editorial.

# **Art. 30, Prop. D** was **accepted as amended**.

**Art. 30, Prop. E** (53: 13: 5: 1)

**Turland** introduced this as a new Note to clarify that page numbers were not part of the content of a publication and were therefore irrelevant in deciding whether a publication was preliminary or final.

**Hawksworth** suggested the Editorial Committee should check that the wording was consistent with what had just been passed. For example, the word "article" would need to be added [i.e. in "volume, issue, article, and page numbers"].

**Art. 30, Prop. E** was **accepted**.

**Art. 30, Prop. F** (3: 10: 52: 1)

**Turland** noted that this **proposal** concerned only an Example and was therefore **automatically** sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

**Redhead** asked that the Editorial Committee look into the word "watermark" in the Example because there was an earlier question about it.

**Knapp** assured him the Committee would investigate.

**Art. 30, Prop. G** (15: 1: 55: 0)

**Turland** stated that this proposal was editorial and came about because Note 1 and Ex. 5 really belonged in Art. 29 and not in Art. 30. The proposers explained that Ex. 5 did not actually illustrate Note 1. He proposed it be sent to the Editorial Committee.

[The **proposal** was supported by **five seconders**.]

**Art. 30, Prop. G** was sent to the **Editorial Committee**.

**Art. 30, Prop. H** (14: 43: 4: 2)

**Turland** explained that Prop. H was contingent on Art. 30 Prop. B and C, which were ruled as rejected in the mail vote. He suggested Prop. H should also be rejected, although the mail vote was only 68% "no", not quite the 75% required for rejection.

**Knapp** suggested a vote because the proposal did not refer to the other proposals.

**Turland** stated that it wouldn't make any sense to accept Prop. H because the related proposals had been rejected in the mail vote.

**Wilson** added that if one looked at the accepted Prop. I, there would be no point in looking at Prop. H.

**Knapp** and **Turland** agreed that the vote was merely a formality. **Art. 30, Prop. H** was **rejected**.

**Art. 30, Prop. I** was discussed under **Art. 30, Prop. D**.

**Art. 30, Prop. J** (4: 39: \*22: 1)

**Turland** noted that Prop. J sought to clarify that electronic supplementary material could be treated as part of the online publication to which it was linked. However, he pointed out that the first clause of Note 2 in the *Melbourne Code* suggested that supplementary material was not part of the publication. Because the Section had just amended Note 2 in Prop. I, the Section should look at that amended wording rather than Note 2 as worded in the *Melbourne Code*.

**Wiersema** explained that what had been excluded was "external sources accessed via hyperlink".

**Turland** cited the wording of the new proposal, "Electronic supplements and appendices issued separately in Portable Document Format and linked to an online publication that complies with the provisions of Art. 29.1 are treated as part of that publication". He pointed out that the Rapporteurs felt that changing the wording "issued separately" to "issued separately and simultaneously" might be better, as the current wording of the new Note suggested that one could link a PDF file not necessarily published at the same time to effectively published electronic material, thereby creating a supplement or appendix that was part of that publication. The Rapporteurs had suggested that those favouring amendments should vote "ed.c.", but there had been a strongly negative mail vote. The Rapporteurs now thought the suggested amendment could be potentially disruptive and urged the Section to proceed with caution.

**Struwe** wondered about supplements and appendices that could only be published in electronic format. The publisher did not allow authors to include them in the publication. For this reason there were links, and this might include original material for the description of new species, figures of type specimens, Excel files [spreadsheets] and many types of information that might be crucial to understand the species concepts and the description of and exclusion of other species from a new species.

**Schori** agreed with the point but offered her experience in trying and failing to track down supplemental information. She described having to go back to a publisher's website to find a link that may or may not have been active or trying to go to a database where there was supposed to be a PDF and not finding a record. She hesitated to accept this amendment, because you would have the original publication at hand, but anything linked to it was not always going to be available.

**Kirk** opined that he would tend to keep things simple. He pointed out an inconsistency between the recently passed Prop. I, which included the words "excludes external resources", and this proposal, which was about external resources. He suggested that, if the preferred journal operated this policy, the authors should publish their new nomenclature in another journal.

**Seregin** thought the proposal covered a situation when something was in a PDF with an ISSN or ISBN, but there was a clear reference that it was an electronic supplement. Under this proposal, such a PDF may be used without any doubt about whether it was supplemental to or the main body of a publication.

**Herendeen** suggested an author could put a link in a paper to something hosted somewhere other than the publisher's website. It could be a link to their own webpage with material that would then be considered part of the publication, and he thought this was risky.

**Greuter** said he thought initially that the Note was potentially disruptive because PDFs are already effectively published under Art. 29.1. Having reread the question, he thought the Note would better be placed under Art. 29.1, saying an electronic supplement with an ISBN or ISSN was acceptable if the ISBN or ISSN was associated with that PDF.

**Gereau** pointed out that the Note also conflicted with the redefinition of "content" already accepted by the Section. By not guaranteeing that all material was simultaneously published, the priority of the publication would be obscured, and therefore the proposal should be rejected.

**Struwe** wondered if supplements and appendices referred to the ones formally published and listed in the publication as "appendix 1", "supplement this" etc. They could be considered a part of the formal publication, but links in the materials and methods to an external supplement somewhere should not. She suggested amending the proposal to say formally linked supplements and appendices within the publication were effectively published.

**Turland** understood that was already the intention of the proposer but wished to draw attention to conflicts with the recently passed Prop. I and the difficulties establishing the date of these publications. An electronic supplement linked to another article may not have any indication of date and could have been added to the article later. He agreed that the proposal should be rejected.

**Knapp** noted this was "very strong" for a Rapporteur-général.

**Turland** agreed it was probably the strongest thing the Rapporteur had said so far. **Art. 30, Prop. J** was **rejected**.

**Art. 30, Prop. K** (5: 58: 0: 2) and **Prop. L** (10: 53: 1: 1) were **rejected** based on the **mail vote**.

#### Recommendation 30A