In defense of the primacy of the Nomenclature Section in decision‐making in botanical nomenclature: A reply to the Rapporteurs’ comment on Proposal 193 to amend the Shenzhen Code

Abstract

AbstractA response is provided to the Rapporteurs’ comments on Proposal 193 to amend the Shenzhen Code. If adopted, Prop. 193 would amend Div. III, Prov. 5 of the Code so as to require a simple majority to approve—as opposed to the current 60% majority to reject (and thus 40% + 1 vote to approve)—General Committee recommendations on conservation, protection, or rejection of names, suppression of works, and binding decisions. We regard the requirement of a simple majority in the affirmative to approve recommendations of the General Committee to be the fairest and most easily understood procedure available. It is also one that is consistent with the compromise worked out and published in 2016 by the Special Committee on By‐laws that reported to the Nomenclature Section at Shenzhen and would restore the procedure used at all nomenclature sections prior to the Nomenclature Section at Vienna in 2005.