A History of Botanical Nomenclature

24 Pages·1991·23.4 MB·English

by  Dan H Nicolson

tv^-
A HISTORY OF BOTANICAL
Dan
IL Nicolson^
NOMENCLATURE^
Abstract
I divide botanical nomenclature into three partly overlapping periods: the schismatic period (1840-1930),
the
lAPT
dark ages (1915-1950), and the renaissance (1950-date). The schisms began 1843
with the British Association
Advancement
for the of Science approval of zoological rules and became manifest with the 1867 Paris Congress
approval of Alphonse de CandoUe's botanical "laws." Reunification efforts, such as those by Dall (1877.12),
failed.
The
contemporary rise of "Darwinism" added to the divisiveness. By the late 1800s, various botanical centers had
were
or evolving modified or different Codes from the Candollean, not mention formed Codes from
to fully "outsiders"
like Saint-Lager (1880.03?, 1881.04) and Kuntze (1891.10). The 1905 Vienna Congress
eliminated but the
all
Brittonian (American) schism, which continued until the 1930 Cambridge Congress compromises. A nomenclatural
"dark age" descended when the 1915 London Congress was cancelled because of a subsequent engagement, World
War
L The
next congress (Ithaca, 1926) declared incompetent due
itself to insufficient International representation.
The 1930 Cambridge Congress revised the 1912 Brussels Code but, largely because of the death of Briquet 1931,
In
Code
its appeared only a few months before the 1935 Amsterdam Congress that amended Again a World War
it.
struck and no official Amsterdam Code was ever produced. The 1950 Stockholm Congress saw
the establishment
of
the International Association for Plant Taxonomy, journal, Taxon, which Code amendment now
its in proposals
all
Regnum
and
appear, its serial publication, Vegetabile, in which all subsequent Codes appear at the remorseless six-
year pace of the congresses.
The
Linnaean aphorisms (1737.07) concerning the winner of this competition but contemporary
nomenclature basically concern generic nomencla- and subsequent workers continued to devise new
ture (the first part of the binary system of nomen- nomenclatural schemes and rules to overturn the
Few
seem
have
clature). to realized that the species past,
names
Lirmaeus
discussed are the diagnostic phrase
^ARLY RECOGNITION OF MODIFIED
names, not the species epithets, called nomina
trivi-
PRIORITY (1813)
Linnaeus
alia, that later, for plants (1753.05.01),
adopted
in his revolutionary binomial (or biverbal) Augustin Pyramus de CandoUe (1813), about to
system.
initiate the great Prodromus, gave a nice discussion
The
Linnaean nomenclature (binomial) system of nomenclature of what might be termed good
name
has two facets: divorcing the from the di- practices with examples. He 250) favored
pri-
(p.
agnosis and minimizing Systems
classification. that ority except in the following five cases: the
(1) if
name
totally eliminate classification, such as uninomial was and contradicted the characters of
false
systems, are unwieldy. Systems that try to diag- the plant, such as Lunaria annua (a biennial);
(2)
nose, such as phrase names, are unstable. Bergeret the name was contrary to Linnaean practices
if
common
devised the worst of all possible systems, called such as pre-Linnaean or names or named
if
phytonomatotechnie, a 15 -letter uninomial system by travelers who were not naturalists; the
(3) if
with each letter expressing a descriptive charac- name was a later homonym of a name already
teristic, such as leglyabiajisbey for Belladonna. published, be the plant or animal kingdom;
in
it
Du
Thouars added name name homonym
Petit a bit of the family the was a later or a tautonym
(4) if
name
each Habenorchis
to generic (such as to created in the process of maintaining the epithet
name nomen
replace Habenaria), Fossil nomenclature of an early name; the was a
is still (5) if
troubled by mixing generic nomenclature with mor- nudum, lacking at least a phrase sufficient to make
phology recognition possible, such as "in a simple catalogue
Priority had no part of the early schemes of of a garden." De CandoUe did not use such modern
homonym, nomen
nomenclature. Their authors, including Linnaeus, words as epithet, tautonym, or
nudum
were focused on replacing the past. Linnaeus was but that what he talked about. This was
is
who
thank Krister Karttunen (Helsinki) and Ronald Stuckey (Columbus, Ohio), shared their bibliographies on
^ I
nomenclature. I also thank Werner Greater, director, and the staff (Berlin) for access to and all facilities at their
quickly regrowing
library.
Department Botany NHB-166, Smithsonian Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.
~ of Institution,
33-56.
Ann. Missouri Box. Card. 78: 1991.
34 Annals of the
Garden
Missouri Botanical
1867 60-
a biological code, revealed by the avoidance Congress of 16 August in Paris. This
still
of homonymy with earlier names in zoology. page paper has pages of introduction, 19 pages
1 1
There undoubtedly are earlier authors who had of "Maws" in 68 articles, and 28 pages of com-
the idea of trying to maintain usage, unlike re- mentary. The commentary is particularly valuable
formers such Linnaeus. The general idea was because comments on past usage with examples,
as
it
commen-
maintain usage from Linnaeus by the principle One of the main issues (one-third of the
to
way
mod-
of priority with certain modifications. It is the tary) concerns author citation, favoring the old
name
ifications that have caused most of the disagree- (only the of the transferring author) but
new way
ments. noting that others had introduced the
name
(only the of the author publishing the
first
Beginning of the Break With basionym) in botany. The issue exemplified by
is
Zoology (1843) how to cite Robert Brown's Matthiola tristis, pre-
known Cheiranthus
viously as Linnaeus's tristis;
The 1843 Code by
approval of Strickland's a
way and
the old Matthiola tristis R. Br., the
is
committee of the British Association for the Ad-
new way Matthiola
tristis L.
is
vancement began what
of Science call
officially I
Bentham was
According (1878.12), the
to
it
a However, they were not thinking in terms
split.
treatment
nomenclatural objections to Muller's
J.
from the second of the following
of a as clear
split, is
Prodromus
Euphorbiaceae occa-
of in the that
quotations:
sioned de CandoUe's producing his Lois. See See-
The quote concerns the evil that they wish
first
mann (1866.12.01), Cray (1867.01), and A. L.
when
to address. consists in this, that naturalists
''It
contemporary
(1867.05.01)
de Candolle for dis-
and an
are agreed as the characters limits of in-
De Karl Koch's
cussion. Candolle indicated that
dividual group or species, they disagree in the
still
London Hor-
proposals (1866) to the International
appellations by which they distinguish Further
it.''
Exhibition and Botanical Congress pro-
ticultural
on they discuss the sins that create this evih
Alphonse de Candolle was
vided the inspiration.
know how nomen-
botanical
Finally, so all will
London 1866 Congress and might
president of the
clature was perceived by zoologists (including
have been stimulated to start thinking about cod-
member Com-
Charles Darwin, a of the Strickland
However, found Koch's pro-
ifying rules. I little in
we
'\ conceive that the botanical no-
mittee):
. .
posals or the proceedings that would have been as
much
day
menclature of the present stands in less
inspiring as the nomenclatural novelties that Jean
The
need enactment than the zoological.
of distinct
de CandoUe's Prodromus. Mul-
Miiller slipped into
down
by Linnaeus, Smith, De-
admirable
rules laid
ler's major sin was to credit names, such as Croton,
candolle, and other botanists have always ex-
. . .,
when
himself he redefined the taxon.
to
over
ercised a beneficial influence their disciples.
Apparently between and 16 August 1867, a
1
more
Hence the language of botany has attained a
Du
composed Weddell,
commission, of Mortier,
and condition than zoology and
perfect stable
. . . Flanchon, Bureau, and de
Cosson, Eichler,
J.-E.
."
backward and abnormal
present state.
its
. . Germany,
Candolle (representing France, England,
One was
of the subsequently liveliest issues the
Belgium, and Switzerland), went over the proposed
new
question of author citation in combinations.
form
and suggested modifications the of
articles in
This work recommended the time?) citing
(for first
Congress de
motions to the Congress. At the (cf.
name
only the author publishing a for the
first
Candolle, 1867.1 there were the discussions
1) first
species (optionally in parentheses), irrespective in
of vital questions such as Order vs. Family, Cohort
now
what genus the epithet was used. Peter F.
as a rank between Class and Order, long discussions
Stevens has suggested (in '"that the develop-
litt.)
how name more debate on author
about hybrids,
to
ment convention associated with changes
of
this is
new combinations, even a mention of
citation for
the philosophy that species are created, fixed
in
who
types in discussions. Otto Kuntze, later will
what
and immutable, and placed in similar genera;
made
make himself famous nomenclature, a
in
who
came was
to be important in priority first
proposal about pleonasms and passed. Eichler
it
unknown who
discovered the species, not finally
argued for replacing -ae- with as in hederae-
-i-,
genus."
put in the 'right'
it
was by Alphonse de Candolle
but finessed
folia,
who said this was a matter of latinity and grammar,
Candollean Laws of 1867
not nomenclature.
On August 1867 Alphonse de Candolle worth noting that the Code (1867.09.12)
fin- It is
1
was
ished the cornerstone work of botanical nomencla- was not enforced like the current Code(s). It
ture for the meeting of the International Botanical ''adopted by the assembly as the best guide to follow
Volume Number 35
Nicolson
78,
1
1991 History of Botanical Nomenclature
\
for botanical nomenclature" (A. L. de CandoUe, and The third part (61-76) included the
fossils.
1867.11: 208). 1867 Code with an indication of the changes pro-
Within 18 months de CandoUe (1869.06) feU posed.
compelled to address the questions and criticisms
He
raised by "his" Code, including approbation.
Kew
Rule
demanded
gently permission not to speak of the
vexing question of author citation, pointing out that The first mention of what will be known as the
"Kew
he seemed to have involuntarily provoked a kind Rule" was by Henry Trimen( 1877.06), This
of polemic and antipathy that rarely contributes to was objected to by de CandoUe (1877.08). Hiern
The
He (1878.03) defended formal
progress in science. continued to avoid discus- stoutly it. first
was by Trimen( 1878.06: Bentham
sion of Greek and Latin because doesn't involve definition 171).
it
new name
nomenclature. mention most of the issues that (1878.12) protested ". creating a in
I
. .
my combine an new
he addressed in his quiet and civil fashion (with order to old specific with a generic
summary): retroactivity of laws (pro); saving one." Jackson (1887.03) discussed his problems
(1) (2)
name when what was become Index Kewensis, The
the a taxon subdivided (pro); with to
is (3)
Kew
"Our name under
effective publication; citation of unpublished Rule: practice is to take the
(4)
names (ex favored over in); (5) names contrary to which any given plant is first placed in its true
name
fact (con); hybrids and cultivated plants genus as the to be kept up, even though the
(6)
may
Dall (1877.12) released an important survey of author of have ignored the proper rule of
it
name when
American zoologists with another Code, including retaining the specific [epithet], trans-
Kew
from genus new." The
the Candollean laws, for botanists and zoologists. ferring its old to the
it
was Code Rule was opposed again by Alphonse de CandoUe
This not a unified (biological) because.
when were (1888.10), but supporters perceived as applying
there real differences (as the different it
endings for family names) then there were separate the principle of priority by maintaining the oldest
name.
but contiguous Otherwise an per- applicable (binomial)
articles. article
1888 monarch
tained to both botany and zoology. For those in- In January Asa Gray, the of
Kew
American
an botany, died, having supported the
terested, excellent discussion of the differences
between the two Codes was published in 1944 (see Rule in one of his last papers (1887.12). Within
Ewan
months Nathaniel Lord Britton (Joseph
bibliography) as-
me
Saint-Lager was peeved by the Candollean sured that the accent is on '"Lord") began to
ef-
show nomen-
'*new"
the inklings of a drastic
forts to maintain status quo, characterized as *'con- first
The
and 1880 he clature, shocking the Old Guard. Candollean
tinuation of disorder anarchy.'' In
released his reform, aiming to overhaul the Code was under attack and promised to flood the
all
new Many new
Index with unnecessary names.
''bad" This substantial treatment (155
spelling.
pages, supplemented by 50 more pages the follow- combinations appeared in Poggenberg et al.'s
ing year) covered most orthography questions (some 888.04) Preliminary Catalogue, hailed by
1
(
new »»
that continue to vex us), applying pure classicism Greene (1888.06) as the ''opening of a era,
or peculiar conventions to change an astounding but attacked by James Britten (1888.09) and Al-
number of names or epithets. His ideas included phonse de CandoUe (1888.10) as ^'mischievous,"
replacing Panax 109) with Panaxus despite a spirited defense by Britton (1888.10).
(at
(1)
(p.
we wouldn't argue about gender) and
least
its (2)
{nemorum,
replacing genitive 118) substantives
(p.
KuNTZE
Strikes (1891)
segetum, sepium) with corresponding adjectives
{nemoralis, segetalis, sepicola). The major effect Late October 1891, Kuntze's new Revisio with
was make botanists aware that correctness could 1,074 replacement genera and 30,000 new com-
to
overturn usage and to strengthen support for the binations appeared, a nomenclatural schism of the
Candollean order. Kuntze had a very broad view of what
laws.
first
In 1883 Alphonse de CandoUe published his constituted homonymy, treated 1737 as the start-
"New
remarks" (commented on by Asa Gray, ing point, and that claimed he was only actually
1883.12). De CandoUe reviewed what happened applying the Candollean Code.
over the past 6 years. His introduction com- Kuntze's work like Saint-Lager's, essentially
is,
1
mented on the Codes and Reports of nonbotanical forgotten, but of examples and repays study,
full
is
groups. The opening part surveyed ongoing dis- It worth trying to realize what an impact his
is
cussions article by article. The second part dealt work had at that point. Geneva (Alphonse de Can-
with new matters, such as nomenclature of organs dolle) discontinued the great Prodromus in 1874,
36 Annals of the
Garden
Missouri Botanical
Kew homonym;
(Bentham and Hooker) Genera tautonym
finished the retained unless a or later (4)
Plantarum in 1883 and (Jackson) had just sent no later homonyms; publication of generic names
(5)
Index Kewensis to press, Berlin (Engler) began either by distribution of printed description or by
Die natiirllchen PJlanzenfamilien in 1888. Sud- citation of one or more species as examples or
denly thousands of names were thrown into ques- types, with or without diagnosis; publication of
(6)
most perhaps challengeable (say by locking species names either by printed description or with
tion,
many
on 1753 rather than 1737) but were not. reference to previously published species as a type;
The major attack came from German botanists. later similar generic names are not to be rejected
(7)
In April 1892 the Ge Botanical Society ap- on account of slight differences, except in spelling;
pointed a committee to prepare a supplement to (8) in case of transfer of a species to another genus,
the Lois of four propositions (theses). This was the original author must be cited in parentheses,
706 new They
mailed to botanists, requesting support and followed by the author of the binomial.
comments Underwood
on each proposal (called ''pamphleteer- also approved sending Lucien to the
Weatherby The Genoa
ing" by in 1949.01). four were: Congress to deliver their resolution.
(1) priority of generic names from 1752; (2) re- The September 1 892 Botanical Congress in
jection of nomina nuda and seminuda, including Genoa was obviously the place where a rousing
generic names based on simple figures and exsic- battle could be expected.
cata without description; retention of generic Underwood (1892.1 reported on the polyglot
(3) 1)
names differing only by the last syllable or inflec- sessions. Ascherson presented the substance of his
even they only by one and recently published report concerning Kuntze with
tion, differ letter;
if (4)
conservation of generic names four proposals. The Rochester platform was pre-
listed
The comments
results of this poll, with received, sentcd. After the discussion the first three Berlin
appeared in Paul Ascherson's report to the Society propositions were approved with 1753 (a Rochester
(1892.07) and again at the September Botanical resolution) for both genera and species. All else
Congress Genoa (400th anniversary of Colum- (conserved names and the Rochester resolution)
in
bus). Dall (1877.12) also had used a poll but was was referred to a committee (Penzig 1893.04?:
my
more interested in principles than in what to 439), which was to report to the next International
eye appears to be ^'damage control.'* Also included Congress (Paris, 1900).
names
was the published of generic to be
first list
conserved, another effort to maintain usage threat-
Madison Rules of Unmodified
who
ened by Kuntze 895. termed
not before)
1 1 if
( 1 ,
Priority (1893)
the an *'Index inhonestans."
list
There was what retrospect can be seen as a In August 1893 a group of American botanists,
in
amend
passing of baton by the nomenclatural leader. Bri- meeting at Madison, Wisconsin, decided to
quet, who had included nomenclatural observations what now are now being called the 'Vules of no-
in his 1891 treatment of mints for Burnat's Flore menclature" adopted at Rochester (1892) and vot-
de$ Alpes Maritimes, published (1892.02.04) his ed to change ''Section IIP' of the Rochester Code
comments on what Kuntze had done to the mints. by striking out after the word "retained.'' This
all
Briquet's evidence was cited by Alphonse de Can- meant that a species epithet must be retained (re-
dolle (1892.05) in one of his last nomenclatural stored) even involved a tautonym or a later
if it
papers before his death (1893.04.04). homony. They also approved ''that precedence in
the same volume be regarded as priority," a mod-
ification of the section. Although the Roch-
first
Rochester Resolution of 1892
ester/Madison resolution (1893.09) did not men-
In the meantime a botanical club (with N. L. tion types, the idea of page (and place on the page)
Britton) held a meeting within the American As- priority, i.e., first listed species or specimen, was
Advancement new
sociation for the of Science (A. A.A.S.) used for typification by practitioners of the
New
in Rochester, York, in August 1892. Their school until the (1907.04) Brittonian (American)
proceedings (Fairchild, 1892.09) included the Code provided ways around the "listed." In-
first
Rochester Resolutions (later called the Rochester deed, the major point of these rules, aside from
Code), which accepted the Paris Code of 1867 with astounding brevity, clarity, consistency, and posi-
eight exceptions: (1) priority was fundamental; (2) tiveness, was that they admitted no exceptions. If
starting point was 1753 for genera and species; you found the earliest name, your troubles were
the original specific name [epithetj was to be over for time. Also, practitioners had the moral
(3) all
.
Volume Number
78,
Nicolson
1 37
1991
History of Botanical Nomenclature
high ground you
in that recognized the earliest Americans were showing an
increasing disarray
proposer and
nothing could be
fairer. icernine their Code(s): the Harvard Code
an-
Note what
that Saint-Lager, Kuntze, Britton, peared on June and August 1895
with con-
five
and
others emphasized
(as radicals) are the rules servative points. The (Anderson
latter
et
al.
themselves, never mind
upsetting usage, which was 1895.08) was signed by 74 American
botanists "of
only a short-term consequence The
(cost). Can- various degrees of repute," comment made
a ear-
dollean (conservative) concept was
to try to main- lier about the signers of the Rochester /Madison
tain the status quo, never mind some complexity
resolutions.
of rules, which are really of no importance. Both
concepts would agree
that stability the goal of BERLIN RuLES (1897, 1902)
is
nomenclature, but one wonders
the interaction
if
Engler and
his staff signed 1 4 rules for the Berlin
of these two schools doesn't resuU Code
a with
in
Museum
^^'^^"^ ^^^ that appeared June 1897.
in
the worst of both worlds: a complex and constantly
^^'' ^^' translated immediately
into English
changing Code
(trying to maintain past usage) and
^^^^^'^^^ ^^^ ^^^"^^ (1897.09), often with com-
constant conservations
(to set aside rules that, de.
The
ments. Rules: was
Priority usually be
(1) to
spite complexity, are not maintaining the
past).
maintained from
(species 1753, genera from
1754).
names
(2) Generic could be dropped not gen-
in
if
Kuntze
Strikes Back
50
eral use for years from establishment
unless
^^"^^'^ ^^^^ ^^"^^ ^^'^
^^*^^
In July 1893 Kuntze published a second dose '^''^?*^ ^^^^^- ^^^
end
to in -ales, families in -aceae, with exceptions
(first part of the third volume) of his Revisio,
It
for Coniferae, Cruciferae, For gender one
etc.
(4)
had two comment
features, a detailed on each
must
follow classical designations names,
or, for later
publication (> commented on
50!) that
his
first
usage in Nat, Pflanzenfam. Changes ought not be
dose and Codex Nomenclature Botanicae
his
notorious errors designations
Emendatus ^^^^P* ^""^ in
German,
French, and
in English
in f^^^
from proper names. Generic synonyms were
(5)
columns
three with Nothing was
parallel text. too
not to be applied in an altered sense for new genera
fine to escape his caustic and withering comments,
even
or was
sections. (6) Priority to rule in species
including the Rochester Resolutions, which were
names
were
unless objections by monogra-
raised
far closer to him than any other.
phers, (7) Parenthetic citation of authors was
to
John who
Isaac Briquet, was dominate
to no-
^ "^^
""^'^ *"°'' combinations, unless the author
menclature more 30
for than years Alphonse
(like
de ^™'^'^ ^^^ "^ .^"^t^^'" g^""^" (^^
Candolle), readdressed (1894.02) the imbroglio P^^"^""!^ fP^^'^'
Linnaean names
capitalization of species was be
to
with a discussion of eight questions and a conclusion
^^"^^^ f'°™
"''''^ ^^""^ ^P'*^^*' '^^'"^^ ""'
involving Kuntze's impact on names P'^'"'°"^'
the generic
"^""^^
"^ ^''''^^' ^"'^^ ^^'"^
of Labiatae. This work was important com- S*^"^'^^- ^^^ g'^*'" ^""^
for the
among ^^^'^''^^ S*'"^"' "^"'^^ f'"^"* "^"^^^- (^^^
ments
on, other things, nomina nuda and P^'"'^"^^
seminuda [subnuda], Patrick Browne, Rumphius, ifc
thaefc
names
recycling synonymy,
fallen into
still-born
Elvasia elvasioides) and depart from
priority in
names,
the role of pre-Linnaean documents, and
case of gross geographic errors (North American
He
infraspecific nomenclature. proposed 10
also
Asclepias sjriaca Hybrids must appear
L.). (12)
modifications of the Lois,
formula
as a of both parents (in alphabetic order)
Kuntze
(1894.07) discussed several recent
at-
with multiplication sign between (binomial nomen-
tacks, expounding on Thouar's orchid names and
clature unsuitable). Manuscript names,
(13) hor-
other positions of page
Pfitzer, priority (against the
names,
ticultural designations in trade catalogs had
Madison amendments), an
obligatory register for
no
rights; a printed diagnosis was required.
(14)
names, "once synonym
plant a always a synonym,"
No
changes permitted to a generic or name
specific
and
so on.
moved
unless by weighty reasons such Rule
as
By 1895 1 1
Ascherson and Engler were
that
all
A
supplement
to the Berlin Nomenklatur-Regeln
were 30-member
left of the international commis-
was published by Engler (1902.08.29).
et
al.
sion recognized at the 1892 Genoa Congress. They
put forward
six propositions (1895.01), of which
Kuntze
Strikes Again
the last two involved avoiding names that have not
been used for 50 years, which would become an In September 1898 Kuntze released the two
last
element
of the Berlin Rules. parts of the third volume of his Revisio, One
sig-
Annals the
38 of
Garden
Missouri Botanical
The
document included a Supplement to his Brittonian rather than American. basic text
nificant
is
unchanged from proposed
Codex Nomenclaturae Botanicae Emeridatas. was mostly the originally
Canon
Code (1904.05), but there were changes in
names)
Congress of 1900 15 (application of generic as well as in-
Paris
mention three
the International conspicuous additions elsewhere.
(styled 1st I
now (metonym,
Botanical Congress) definitions of obscure terms ty-
ponym, hyponym, taxonomic syn-
respectively
By October 1900 the stae1e 1was1s1et for fireworks / j ^^« ^r
^ onym, nomenclatur' ali synonym, and name ol a^rn.
Congress unanimously decided put some-
but the to
^.^
ui
. , . \
unidentifiable taxon).
D r
one c1harge /(TJoVhn Bri• quet)\ andJ revi• se \t\.he LodAe W
in
next Congress. This was the begmning of
at the
compared
^^^^ ^^^ ^^^
^^.^ ^^ ^^^^^ j^^^^ ^^^^j^
Hua (m
the office of rapporteur general. Perrot,
Rochester/Madison resolutions'
^^^ ^^^^^^^^j
^^
475-486) made proposa
1900: a detaUed to es-
.^^^^^^^ on gave an elaborate
insistence priority:
it
an publication
international periodical for
tablish
than
choosing types other
^^^.^^ ^^ directions for
of new names, a forerunner of a proposal referred
^^^ ^^^^.^^^ .^p,.^.^ recognition of the first listed.
subcommittee registration of publications.
to a for
Rochester/
Apparently the practitioners of the
Kuntze^ struck again, this ^i^^^ (1903.^2) with
^^^^.^^^ were upsetting more usage than
resolutions
Th
compromise
and were
they necessary willing to
o felt
Phanerogamarum, mcludmg Codex Brevis
his ^^^
^^^ ^.^^ exceptions that
^^^.^ ^^.^^^
^
The work Kuntzes Code pha-
Maturus. applied to
^^^^
^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^.^^j resolutions
nerogam generic names, had a bunch of cryptogam
in toto.
generic names and, the second part, dealt with
in
names above generic rank, warranting a look
all
1905
Vienna Congress of
by those interested in such.
(2ND CONGRESS, IST CoDE)
Kuntze was given recognition. Stafleu (in
little
TL-2 under excerpted Barnhart's (1904.04)
Post)
down
Briquet tracked reasonably explicit pro-
all
comment
about Kuntze, "Possibly the vituperation
^g^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ translated
^^^^^ ^^
poured upon who disagree with him has pre-
all
^^^^ .^^^ p^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^.^^^ ^^ organization.
vented his ideas from receivin^g as serious consid- ^, ,. r f^j o^
. . i *• were accepted as Uhoa,rv;iT^nrgT
Thirty-eight publications
unfortunate
eration as they deserve. certainly
It ,s
document,
^^.^^ proposals. This a remarkable
is
an
he should regard himselfas mfallible referee
that
^^^^^ ^„ ^^^ ^^^pj,^j ^^j
^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^
m
upon points dispute and hurl anathemas at
all mem-
39
.^^^ ^^^^ ^904)^ ^^ ^^„t ,^ ^^e
it
who acknowledge char-
refuse to his authority,
all
comments
^^^
commission with as rap-
^^ ^^^ his
mex-
acterizing their propositions as 'dishonest,
20
^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^„ ^^
^^^^^^ ^^
and
ecutable,' 'lawless
'false'
January 1905 Briquet (1905.03.15) laid
(31
did).
out four columns: original (1867) text,
in (1)
all
Code
Brittonian (American) (1907)
proposed change(s), the rapporteur's ob-
(3)
(2)
and Precursor (1904)
Its
and
servations to the Commission, (4) text rec-
ommended Commission.
The Americans were divided and criticisms were by the
1905
The Congress convened June Vienna,
being published, such as that by Fernald (1901.11), in in
Austro-Hungarian empire,
pointing out instability (actually inconsistencies) of capital of the flourishing
This was the meeting devoted solely to the
practitioners of the Rochester resolutions. In early first
They had an
1903 Club American Asso- vexing "problem of nomenclature."
the Botanical of the
immense amount end
Advancement of Science appointed of business with potential to
ciation for the
Nomenclature Commission. They produced a or descend deeper into chaos. It is fascinating to
a
"Code Nomenclature" (1904.05) with read how the proceedings were laid out (order of
of Botanical
19 canons, and separate sections business), who had votes, and who did what. For
four principles,
nominated Wettstein
on orthography and This came with a example, N, L, Britton for
citations.
French
Bureau and proposed that
simple proposal to the Vienna Congress, "the laws president of the
of 1867 be amended by abandonment of all its be the official language of nomenclature. Both were
and of the appended Code." approved. Those wanting to speak had to submit
substitution
articles
name (nom
and
This proposal failed at Vienna in 1905, leading to a slip with their position et qualite)
minutes
the Philadelphia "American Code of Botanical No- to the president. Speakers were given five
on
menclature" of 1907.04, which should be called (ten by exception) and only could speak twice
Volume Number
78, Nicolson 39
1
!
1991
History of Botanical Nomenclature
same
the subject. In fact, this Congress provided (mostly) Americans and
British botanists that
the model still followed by our nomenclature ses- strongly signaled compromise and
recognition that
^i^^s.
unity nomenclature was
in better than ongoing
The
proceedings 1906) were
(Briquet, also well
strife.
spelled out, with a concordance of the 1867 Lois In July 1924, Alfred Barton Rendle
presided
with the Rules and Recommendations 1905
of the over a discussion at the Imperial Botanical Con-
Congress, the Code (principally for vascular plants) gress of 13 points about the Code published by a
German
French, and now
in English, with the con- committee convened by T. A. Sprague (1924.03).
served generic names. One seems 'The
point current, Rules are too
still
Among many
the accomplishments of the Vi- long and complicated." The conference
resolved
enna Congress were
the establishment of the several
first interesting points: that Latin descriptions
imposed international Code (the 1867 Lois was should not be required, homynyms
later should
all
recommended
only
as the best guide to follow). It be rejected, the type method should be adopted,
did not satisfy Kuntze, but he died in early 1907. and duplicate binomials (tautonyms) should be
re-
The
Brittonian Americans, although they had won
stored.
some
victories, were not happy that names still In Hitchock's reliquiae at US found two un-
I
were
not applied according to types and were published worth One
al- circulars mentioning. Hitch-
is
new
lergic to the requirement that Latin had to be cock's circular pages, not counting cover
(six letter)
used names new
for publishing of taxa, considered American
to botanists interested nomenclature
in
arbitrary.The Americans, at least those supporting dated 15 October 1924 concerning
the practica-
N. more
L. Britton, therefore settled firmly into bility of compromise. The other by Fernald and
is
the Brittonian (American) Code, a rupture that Weatherby dated 8 December 1924,
apparently
would continue for twenty-five years. also widely circulated in America, which discussed
made
the 12 proposals by Hitchcock. These
un-
Hitchcock's compromises
derlie (1926.05).
The
Brussels Congress 1910
of
2nd
(3rd Congress, Code)
Ithaca Congress of 1926 (4th Congress)
Aside from nomenclature
the was
section, there
also an important section on bibliography and doc- In August 1926, Sprague, Hitchcock, and
Bri-
The
umentation. and
paleontologists, phycologists, quet showed up at the Ithaca Congress. Sprague's
made many
mycologists Harms's
proposals. pro- paper was extremely and
erudite offered the basis
on names
posals conserving fern passed. Briquet for a world-wide agreement on nomenclature, com-
tendered his resignation but, when everyone was bining the best features of the International Rules
upset, got what he really wanted, help. Harms was and the Brittonian (American) Code. sad
that
It
is
elected vice-rapporteur, the beginning of that of- these important proceedings were not published
1929
ce.
Duggar).
fi until (in
The 1915 London
Congress was never made
held, Hitchcock also concrete proposals, ar-
War
because of the outbreak of World in 1914. guing vigorously for a "standard of accepted
I
list
Two
people were particularly important in the generic names, each with the species that shall
War
World
years soon after I: Albert Spear Hitch- direct application." This would begin with con-
its
cock (US) and Thomas
Archibald Sprague names
(K). served ''but would be gradually extended
Each
published initiatives that would ultimately to include also generic names use." This
all in
mesh. In April 1919 Hitchcock presented some sounds "names
like a precursor of the in current
names
rules for fixing types of generic that would use" effort, which divided on whether types
is still
become
(1921.04) the ''type-basis" Code. Did you should be included.
A
realize that conservation of generic names, passed roundtable discussion was held with papers
Vienna
read by Briquet (review since 1910 with sugges-
hsted types? upcoming 1930 Cambridge
tions for the Congress),
Sprague's was Howe
(1921.06)
initiative to publish a Marshall
("I don't feel so irreconcilable as
thoughtful paper on nomenclature may
plant titled have"), and Merritt Lyndon Fernald ("keep
I
"Some
A
suggestions." This appeared in the Journal Latin"). paper from N. L. Britton was read for
'/ him ("nothing constant but change"). The report
is
comments. The paper McKay
tation for stimulated a series Duggar, 1929: 1782) by Karl Wie-
(in
of pleasant and unpolemic contributions from gand, secretary of the taxonomy section, noted the
40 Annals of the
Garden
Missouri Botanical
Committee The Cambridge Code, despite extremely
an Interim gress. its
approval of International
with John Briquet as chairman, H, Harms, vice- short life, was the first completely international
more 20 named members from Code,
than
chairman, with
nomenclatural resolutions
over the world. All
all
committee.
were referred to this
Amsterdam Congress of 1935 (6th Congress)
Cambridge Code
death had delayed the
Briquet's
1930
Cambridge Congress of
which, turn, shortened the lead time for revisions
in
(5th Congress, 3rd Code)
September 1934 an an-
the next Congress. In
at
The 20 documents, nouncement appeared in several journals Bot.
synopsis of proposals cited {J.
most typewritten. One of the most important was Misc, Infc
Code had be submitted
a 203-page document (1929.08?) by "British bot- the (still unpublished) to in
100 by January 1935. (That should slow
Hitchcock and/or Green's copies
anists." included lists 1
It
of generic names (then 458 currently conserved things down!) Nonetheless, indefatigable botanists
by 935,
and 59 Linnaean) proposing that the application produced 4 submissions and, July 1
1
1
1
,
seven
of these names be controlled by means of the spec- Sprague sent the synopsis of proposals to the
Nomen-
''standard-species." Sprague'slist of proposed members of the Executive Committee of
ified
conserved names the truly documented ap- clature elected at Cambridge and to seven others,
is first
names 10 These were used to compile
proach proposing for conservation, hith- obtaining votes.
to
Con-
erto a matter of citing competing names and places the Preliminary Opinions distributed at the
of publication (both in proposals and in the Code) gress in September.
Among submissions processed by Sprague,
and nothing more. the
43
Briquet's synopsis was, as before, a model of have had most occasion to consult the col-
I
confusion. The multicolumn approach lected proposals ''by twelve botanists" that ap-
clarifying
continued, but now with only two columns. The peared in 1935.03. I would draw attention to Wil-
column had the original text of the Brussels mott's Index Purgatio, listing works that should
first
and Sprague
(1912) Code and, in italics in the second column, be rejected for various cited reasons,
20
comments on proposed new and Green's provisional of institutions in
the rapporteur's the list
names,
The votes of the Commission on the proposals geographical areas to get copies to validate
text.
now became language,
appeared second document "Avis prealable" English the official re-
in a
that was handed out at the Congress (apparently placing French, which had been official since Brit-
1905 Vienna Congress was
proposal the
ton's to
rare),
The and Cambridge
summarize approved. preceding Brussels
not attempt to or highlight the
I will
from proceedings beyond saying that the proceedings had been reported in French, but prob-
debates
idea of using types to determine the application of lems arose with the unexpected death of Briquet,
names than circumscription) Harms, the vice-rapporteur, asked Rendle to pre-
(rather the original
most proposals
was and requirement (regarded pare the English text since of the
accepted, the Latin
German
as arbitrary by Britton) was moved forward from had been in English. The French and texts
1908 1932. This ended the American schism. were generated by translation from Rendle's En-
to
&
Mary
There was an interesting discussion (cf. Brooks glish text. Sprague thanked Miss Letitia
544-553) "Manna" Green he
Chipp, 1931: about matters that since for her collaboration (in fact,
have come to pass or remain needed, such as married her).
1935 Cambridge Code
Harvey proposed "International Bureau of Sprague asked that the
Hall's
1930
Plant Taxonomy," making and distributing pho- be recognized as a faithful record of the
tographs of types, and producing an index to col- Cambridge decisions. This was wise in view of the
and would
lections in different herbaria (Ramsbottom). great difficulties after Briquet's death, it
nomen-
Unfortunately, John Isaac Briquet died in late have been even more futile than usual for
October 1931, and the task of producing the third claturalists to argue whether or not a proposal had
He
edition of the Code (in three languages) fell to been implemented correctly. did ask that the
moved
Harms, Rendle, Mangin, Hochreutiner, and Latin requirement date be forward again,
Sprague. Sprague (1933) published the main pro- from 1932 (when the Code had been expected) to
He
visions of the amended Code with examples from 1935 (when the Code came out). also proposed
20%
Rendle (1934.06) published an automatic rejection of proposals with less than
the British flora.
The Cam- (Commission)
English text (without appendices). official support in the preliminary vote,
bridge Code appeared about February 1935, only Probably the major battle of this Congress con-
when
months September Amsterdam Con- cerned the application of a combination mis-
before the
Volume Number
Nicolson 41
78.
1
Nomenclature
1991 History of Botanical
applied, the classic example being Tsuga merten- requesting return by 1 June 1950. I note that A.
name
siana (Bong.) Carr. Carriere based his on C. Smith received his copy on 5 June, so he did
540
Bongard's Pinus mertensiana but applied to an not return There were only proposals to
it it.
Two
40
excellent illustration that was not Bongard's spe- process in hours (4 minutes each). hundred
cies. This a classic problem of the old circum- mail ballots were received and anything with less
is
25%
scription method tangling with the new type method than support was automatically rejected.
An 1950
introduced), not to mention the whole question important event occurred on 18 July
(just
of whether or not parenthetic authors should be at what Stafleu (1988.08: 795) called "an informal
cited that had so vexed nomenclaturalists of the session" (attended by 130 taxonomists). Lanjouw's
preceding century. proposals an association with an (bureau)
for office
became
Hitchcock died on shipboard while returning Utrecht was accepted and Resolution
in
from the Amsterdam Congress, 10 of the Congress 67, 68). This was the
(pp.
Now War
World II interposed. Not only was official beginning that turned into things like the
Regnum
there no Stockholm Congress in 1940, there never Taxon and Vegetahile. Taxon, being the
Amsterdam new
was an Code. Until the next journal of the International Association
official official
make
Congress (Stockholm in 1950) people had to for Plant Taxonomy, became the vehicle for pro-
do with 1935 (Cambridge) Code and what they posals to amend the Code so that they no longer
Amsterdam
could find about the Congress (fortu- were scattered through the literature. I would be
nately not too drastically changed, but the type astonished any working taxonomist does not con-
if
Regnum
method was new many) mostly from Sprague's something Vegetahile almost every
to suit in
summary 1936 and the Congress proceedings. day, be Index Herbariorum, TL-2, IP^G, or even
in
it
Approved conserved names were listed by Sprague the Code,
The Taxon appeared September
(1940.06). issue of in
first
Regnum
The
1951. Vegetahile
issue of (ac-
first
numbered was Stockholm Code, which
tually 3) the
Code
Brittonia (Unofficial)
appeared in September 1952, barely in time for
The Stockholm
In the late 1940s steps were taken to revive the Paris Congress. editing of the
War The
World The word went Code was described by Merrill (1952.01).
things, just as after
I.
came
out in 1946 that there would be a Congress in Stockholm Congress proceedings out in 1953.
March 1946
Stockholm 1950. In the Council
in
American Taxonomists
of the Society of Plant ap-
pointed a committee (Camp, Rickett, and Weath-
Paris Congress of 1954
They produced
erby) to prepare for the Congress.
(8th Congress, 5th Code)
Code foUowed
(1947.04),
the unofficial ^'Brittonia"
by a symposium on botanical nomenclature in De- This was the first Congress to have all proposals
The Geneva
cember 1947 Louis (published 1949.01). published in a single journal. Confer-
at St.
25-30
ence January 1954 was precursor
Weatherby's paper, "Botanical nomenclature since of a
1948
1867," said everything that should be said. event, as the Utrecht Conference of June
Meanwhile, February 1947, Professor Lan- before the Stockholm Congress. Its report appeared
in
jouw (Utrecht) wrote several botanists and, hav- in April 1954, soon after the synopsis. Stafleu's
to
June report on the proceedings appeared August 1955.
ing gotten support, invited taxonomists to a in
A
1956 Code was
1948 conference on preparing a new Code. The feature of the (Paris) the ap-
Another
were not published August(?) 1950 pearance of a fourth language, Spanish.
results until
Among was concordance and Recommendation
but they had dramatic consequences before. a of Article
numbers among Code and two
Americans Utrecht Conference were the latest Paris the
the at the
who preceding Codes (Stockholm and Cambridge),
and were already involved
Merrill Rickett, in
American Ray Fosberg was there would be useful to extend this concordance
the initiative. It
(and attended the thesis defense of Frans A. Sta- back through the three preceding Codes, Brussels
Some-
Lanjouw agreed to be acting rapporteur ge- (1912), Vienna (1906), and Paris (1867).
fleu).
how weave
neral, succeeding Sprague. this should then in all proposals to the
same and
text (including rejected ones) the ex-
am
we
amples convinced would
proffered. find
I
Stockholm Congress of 1950
we
are constantly reinventing the wheel, not
if
(7th Congress, 4th Code)
same examples
repeatedly raising the discussed
Lanjouw's synopsis of proposals was large (255 before.
pages) and was mailed with the voting form. There neither time nor space to continue since
first is
42
Annals
of the
Garden
Missouri Botanical
we are only half way through and have six more CHRONOLOGIC BIBLIOGRAPHY ON BOTANICAL
NOMENCLATURE, WiTH SoME ANNOTATIONS
Codes to go, the products of the subsequent Con-
gresses: Montreal (1959), Edinburgh (1964), Se- The entries in this bibliography are arranged chrono-
The
(1969), Leningrad (1975), Sydney (1981), logically to better reflect the subject, history. bib-
attle
my liogr^phy's purpose is not just to support text references
and Montreal was Congress
Berlin (1987).
first
as conventional Literature Cited, and has unexpected
it
my
and was somewhat distracted by being on
I
entries such as the death date of some workers.
critical
My
memory
honeymoon. Edinburgh was
of
best All citations appear with the date the format
in
my
the "Bloody Donk" speech. At Seattle made year. month. day, in increasing degrees of accuracy.
i.e.,
I
Inco"^pleteIy dated publications are usually cited after
motion on and have been
the (defeated)
first floor
more Some
completely dated
publications. publications
to1 d, t,hat t1hi. s was t.1he 1 ast. 4t d1ecent.'>'> Ln>ode^ . JLemn' eorad1 „ i "^ j c ^i. u /^^ A^\ j
give only a spread of months, such as (06-07), or days
my
passed orthography proposals, probably
assist- 10-17. The query was used when more
there than
(?) is
my
when
ed by absence discussions started, for the usual uncertainty. Dates were mostly determined from
evidence in the publications or from other sources, such
time, with proposals pertaining to the last
first
art.i•c1les otr tt^vh. e Lr*odJe. TIuh-is was *tuhe c -. Li^odJe *to ^s Stafleu and Cowan's Taxonomic Literature II.
first
number
paragraphs making
within articles, eas- 1737.07. Linnaeus, C. Critica Botanica. 270 Lugduni
it pp.
Sydney was the Congress most of Batavorum. [Arthur Hort's translation, revised by M.
ier to cite. first
L. Green, published 1938 by the Ray Society, was
us experienced without Stafleu the chair and
in
questioned by Heller (1964.04). Note: As Miss Green
"mice when away."
play the cat Stafleu
will
is
when
Linnaeus spoke names, he
said, of specific
rejoined us for Berlin (1987), but said that he will meant
the diagnostic phrases in the binary system
Tokyo
not go to (1993). of his predecessors and himself, not the trivial epithets
We
adopted binomial system.]
must end on an upbeat, and can do no later in his
I
1753.05.01. Linnaeus, C. Species Plantarum .... Hol-
better than repeat Weatherby's (1949.01: 7)
miae.
translated quotation from Alphonse de Candolle's
1798.11. Lamarck, Monnet Nomencla-
B. A. P. de.
J.
introduction to his 1867 Lois (with a few minor
498-499
ture. Pp. in Encycl. Meth. Bot. Volume
changes since nomenclaturalists can't even quote
4. H. Agasse, Paris. [Complained of abuses, such as
each other without making ''improvements"): Linnaeus's converting Syringa into Philadelphus,
opposing replacement names
the of familiar to bot-
"There come a time when the plant forms
will all
names
anists. ''These two kinds of [generic and spe-
when
have been
existence described; her-
in will
cific] ought to be subject to rules that cannot be set
baria contain indubitable material of them;
will
aside without prejudicing the science that they aim
when have made, unmade, He
botanists will often re- to facilitate." particularly objected to the generic
names He
made, raised or lowered, and above modified of the Forsters. objected to specific epithets
all,
that are untrue and those derived from names of
several hundred thousand taxa ranging from classes
OK
places or scholars (the latter were for genera).]
simple and when synonyms have
to varieties, will
221-
1813. Canix)lle, a. p. de. Dela nomenclature. Pp.
much
become more numerous
than accepted
taxa. 252
in Theorie Elementaire de Botanique
la
. . . .
Then science have need of some great reno- Paris.
will
1821.01. Smith, E. Respecting Nomenclature
vation of formulae. This nomenclature which J.
its
51-54 A Grammar Longman
Pp. in of Botany.
et
we now
improve then appear an
strive to will like
London. Reprinted by Prakash
Publishers, Jaipur,
al.,
old scaffolding, laboriously patched together and
in 1973. [Objected to corrupt names. '^Future gen-
surrounded and encumbered by
the debris of
re- eral writers on Botany, of competent authority, must
The have been reform these abuses."]
jected parts. edifice of science will
An
1832.10. Lindley, Introduction Botany
to
built, but the rubbish incident to construction J.
its
Longman
London. [Chapter IV Nomencla-
et of
al.,
Then
not cleared away. perhaps there arise
will
V
ture and Terminology 454-459) and Of Syn-
(pp.
something wholly from Linnaean nomen-
different
onyms 460-462). DC.
uses asteriks (*) syn-
(pp. in
=
clature, something so designed as to give certain onymy good description. "Mark of admiration"
—
and definite names to certain and definite taxa. indicates inspection of authentic specimen thus,
(!)
427."]
"Linn.!, sp.
"That pi.
the secret of the future, a future
is still
1843. Strickland, H. E. (reporter), Phillips,
J. J.
very
far
oflT.
Richardson, Owen, W.
R. L. Jenyns, Broderip,
J.
meantime,
''In the let us perfect the binomial W.
Henslow, Shuckard, Water-
S. E. G. R.
J.
system introduced by Linnaeus. Let us try to adapt W. Darwin & Westwood.
house, Yarrell,
C. O.
J.
better to the continual, necessary changes in Series of propositions for rendering the nomenclature
it
of zoology uniform and permanent. Report
of the
science drive out small abuses, the neg-
little
. . .
1 2th Meeting of the British Association for the Ad-
come
agreement on
ligences and, possible, to
if
vancement
of Science held at Manchester June
in
Thus we way
controversial points. shall prepare the 105-121.
1842,
pp.
for the better progress of taxonomy.'* 1843.07. Gould, some
A. A. Notice of works, recently