NOMENCLATURE AT SYDNEY

Abstract

Following the Edinburgh (1964) and Seattle (1969) International Botanical Congresses, my predecessor as Rapporteur-g6enral, Frans Stafleu, presented in Taxon (13: 273-282; 19: 36-42) light and rather personal reports conveying some of the spirit as well as the substance of what the Nomenclature Section accomplished-a tradition here resumed. A tabulation of specific actions (including disposition of published proposals) appeared in the November 1981 issue of Taxon, and several committee reports will appear in the May 1982 issue. A full report, prepared largely by Werner Greuter, will follow. But did we really do anything to make better nomenclators of gardeners-or taxonomists? Since the time of Carl Linnaeus, whose nomenclatural endeavors are better known than anything said on the subject by his contemporary, the eccentric Christopher Smart (who penned the work quoted above while incarcerated in a British insane asylum), Smart's cry of despair and plea for divine guidance in nomenclature have often been thought if not explicitly stated. The Code never seems to offer enough guidance (or the right guidance) to please everyone, so the nomenclators of the world gathered once again at Sydney for 41/2 days of deliberations, August 17-21, 1981, immediately preceding the main sessions of the XIII International Botanical Congress. With 152 registered members of the Nomenclature Section and 210 proposals for amendment of the Code assembled in the Synopsis (plus several late proposals from the floor), it is not surprising that discussion filled, as always, all available time. The pace at which proposals were acted upon (or referred to a committee) quickened perceptibly as the week drew closer to its end. The ninth half-day session was even able to adjourn a full hour early, thanks to the skillful and experienced guidance of Reed Rollins, whose first service as president of the Section was at Edinburgh in 1964. Relieving him for some of the sessions were vice presidents Hansj6rg Eichler and Desmond Meikle. About 45% of the proposals were either accepted or referred to the editorial committee, a slightly higher percentage than usual. Almost the same number were rejected, but many of these were understood to be referred, along with some others, for consideration by four special committees to be appointed by the General Committee with a charge to report to the next Congress on matters of lectotypification, orthography, effective publication, and valid publication. Had the Section fully debated these topics, we might still be in Sydney (indeed a more pleasant place than the northern hemisphere to be this time of year!). As it was, most proposals heavily rejected by the mail vote were even quite fully discussed (or cussed) on the floor. All this helps to make clear that attendance at the nomenclature sessions does serve to make all of us better nomenclators, for there is no more educational experience than hearing (and participating in) discussions on what the Code says, what it means, what it ought to say, and what it ought not to say. Members of the Section included a full range of experience, from graduate students to botanists with memories of several previous Congresses. It is this fully democratic opportunity to make and discuss proposals, to explore their implications for several branches of taxonomy and bibliography, and to meet one's colleagues that justifies the regular gathering of these sessions (in which any Congress registrant is entitled to participate). Rotation of Congresses among different countries encourages diverse geographic representation; this first Congress in the southern hemisphere was particularly noteworthy in this respect. The Section included a number of old faithfuls whose familiar faces and nomenclatural oratory lend an aura of continuity, even stability, to the proceedings. But there were also so many Australian and New Zealand botanists (for whom attendance at previous Congresses was