Important changes in the rules of nomenclature, especially those relevant for palaeobotanists

Abstract

Authors who describe and publish new names of plants, who make new combinations (based on earlier names) and who publish replacement names, should do so in accordance with the rules. These rules can be found in the Code — since the International Botanical Congress in Melbourne in 2011, the Melbourne Code is in effect. The most important changes will be mentioned, with special attention to those rules that apply to what formerly were often indicated as ‘fossil plants’, now to be called ‘plant fossils’.Besides changes in the rules, from now on, there is also an important change in the publication format of the Code: The rules are kept in one volume, and the continuously growing Appendices will constitute a separate volume.Besides an alteration to the name of the Code, there are two major changes in the rules: the acceptance of certain forms of electronic publication and the abandonment of the morphotaxon concept. Parallel to the latter alteration is a change for mycologists: the abolition of the provision for separate names for fungi with a pleomorphic life history.In Section 3, some further changes in and rearrangements of rules are discussed, preceded by a paragraph in which the basic concepts of the possible status of a name are presented: effectively published, validly published and legitimate.