NOMENCLATURE OF CULTIVATED PLANTS: A HISTORICAL BOTANICAL STANDPOINT

Changes to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are decided upon every six years at Nomenclature Sections associated with International Botanical Congresses (IBC). The XVIII IBC was held in Melbourne, Australia; the Nomenclature Section met on 18–22 July 2011 and its decisions were accepted by the Congress at its plenary session on 30 July. Several important changes were made to the Code as a result of this meeting that will affect publication of new names. Two of these changes will come into effect on 1 January 2012, some months before the Melbourne Code is published. Electronic material published online in Portable Document Format (PDF) with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) will constitute effective publication, and the requirement for a Latin description or diagnosis for names of new taxa will be changed to a requirement for a description or diagnosis in either Latin or English. In addition, effective from 1 January 2013, new names of organisms treated as fungi must, in order to be validly published, include in the protologue (everything associated with a name at its valid publication) the citation of an identifier issued by a recognized repository (e.g. MycoBank). Draft text of the new articles to do with publication is provided and best practice is outlined. © The Authors. Journal compilation © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 133–136. To encourage dissemination of the changes made to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, this article will be published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, Brittonia, Cladistics, MycoKeys, Mycotaxon, New Phytologist, North American Fungi, Novon, Opuscula Philolichenum, PhytoKeys, Phytoneuron, Phytotaxa, Plant Diversity and Resources, Systematic Botany and Taxon.

To the Editor: Our 2002 article in Emerging Infectious Diseases about nomenclature changes for organisms in the genus Pneumocystis (1) has been widely cited and probably will remain a source for persons seeking information about this subject. Therefore, we need to correct an error in 1 of the species names presented in our article and in the 1999 article by Frenkel (2) on which our article was based. In the 1999 article, Frenkel proposed that the species of Pneumocystis found in humans be named to honor the Czech parasitologist, Otto Jirovec. The 1999 article was his second proposal for this change. In 1976, he first named the human pathogen Pneumocystis jiroveci (3), at which time it was classified as a protozoan and therefore named according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. By 1999, it had become clear that the organisms in the genus Pneumocystis are fungi, which are named according to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) (4). Differences between the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and ICBN resulted in the realization of an error in the species epithet proposed by Frenkel in 1999, and our 2002 article contained this error. Frenkel’s 1999 article should have modified the species epithet from “jiroveci” to “jirovecii,” (ICBN Articles 32.7 and 60.11 and Rec. 60C.1b). The correct and valid name under ICBN is Pneumocystis jirovecii. Redhead et al. further explain the basis for this correction (5).

곰팡이의 명명을 규정하는 규약이 '국제식물명명규약(International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, ICBN)'에서 '국제 조류, 균류, 식물 명명 규약(International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants, ICN)'으로 바뀌게 되었다(2011.7). ICBN에서 ICN으로 바뀌게 되면서 많은 변화가 있지만 가장 큰 변화는 곰팡이의 이중명명을 더 이상 허용하지 않는다(2013. 1)는 것이다. 새로운 이름을 가질 곰팡이는 이 규칙에 따라 명명하면 되지만 문제는 2013년 1월 1일 이전에 완전세대와 불완전 세대에 근거하여 두 개의 이름을 이미 가지고 있는 10,000-12,000개의 곰팡이의 경우이다. 우선 ICN에는 이에 대한 혼란을 막기 위해서 2013년 1월 1일 전에 이전의 명명규약에 의하여 보고된 학명은 유효성과 합법성을 유지한 채 우선권의 원칙에 따라 서로 경쟁한다는 조항을 추가하였다. 하지만 결국은 세대에 관계없이 하나의 곰팡이 이름을 사용해야 할 것이며 이에 따라 세계 균학계는 곰팡이 분야별 작업반 또는 위원회를 결성하는 등 바쁘게 움직이고 있다. 일균일명 체계로의 전환에 대한 배경, 경과, 그리고 향후 전망에 대하여 상술하였다. 이 외에도 전자출판이 유효출판으로 인정(2012.1)되게 되었고, 영어신종기술도 정당출판으로 인정되게 되었으며(2012. 1), 또한 신종의 학명과 필수정보를 공인정보저장소에 등록하는 것이 의무화 된다(2013. 1). 곰팡이의 새로운 명명규약과 일균일명 체계로의 전환에 대한 국제 균학계의 움직임을 국내에 한글로 쉽게 소개하였다. Nomenclatural code for fungi was dramatically modified in the 18th International Botanical Congress (IBC) held in Melbourne, Australia in July 2011. Its name was changed into International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi and Plants (ICN), which was formerly called as International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) of the Vienna Code of 2005. The most important change for fungi is abandoning dual nomenclature and introducing one fungus/one name system (2013. 1). Since more than 10,000 species of fungal names should be renamed based on this new classification system (one fungus/one name system), it is challenging to both mycologists and taxonomic users such as plant pathologists and food scientists. Here, we introduced background, progress and future plan for its transition into one fungus/one name system. The new code is allowing electronic-only publication of names of new taxa (2102. 1) and the requirement for a Latin validating diagnosis was changed to allow either English or Latin for the publication of a new name (2011. 1). Furthermore, pre-publication deposit of key nomenclatural information in a recognized repository is mandatory in ICN (2013. 1). The aims of this manuscript are to introduce new code of fungal nomenclature and recent trends in one fungus/one name system to Korean mycological society.

This chapter reviews plant nomenclature and taxonomy, taking into consideration the several species concepts in wild plants; classification philosophies in wild and cultivated plants such as tomato, potato, lettuce, Brassica, Prunus and wheat; brief history of nomenclature and codes; fundamental differences in the classification and nomenclature of cultivated and wild plants; differences between the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and International Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (ICNCP); possible new codes of nomenclature; cultivated plant nomenclature and the law; cultivar epithets and trademarks; and recommendations for a universally stable crop nomenclature through changes and use of the ICNCP references.

The International code of botanical nomenclature has mostly evolved gradually, though at some International Botanical Congresses in a more punctuated manner, since 1867 (Perry, 1991). A considerable number of aspects of the Code remain a cause for concern because they are either somewhat ambiguous or lagging behind contemporary needs of both systematists and users of names (Hawksworth, 1992). While many of the most pressing concerns are addressed in proposals to be placed before the International Botanical Congress in 1993, not least in those relating to the establishment of lists of names in current use (NCU) and procedures for the registration of new names, various other changes are desirable in order to allow the Code to continue on a progressive evolutionary course. In addition, it has been recognized by the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS) that there is a need to work towards a greater harmonization between aspects of the various Codes of nomenclature, especially in relation to common problems (Younes, 1992: 68). That evolution should thus now increasingly aim to be convergent as well as progressive. The following miscellaneous proposals, dealing with seven basic issues, are made with the objective of promoting progressive convergence. They include some old chestnuts which must surely eventually be implemented, and which therefore should be re-submitted.

Is Myxomycetes (Amoebozoa) a Truly Ambiregnal Group? A Major Issue in Protist Nomenclature

The approach to next international botanical congress, to be held in Vienna in 2005, is curiously similar to that (100 years earlier) leading into Vienna Congress of 1905. Entering 1905 Vienna Congress, four competing codes were in use--the De Candollean, Kew, Berlin, and (Weatherby, 1949). A strong presence in background at 1905 congress was Otto Kuntze, with his penchant for changes (Smith, 1957), potentially impacting nomenclatural stability. Issues considered at 1905 congress were: type method; use of descriptive Latin; how strict priority should be, and relatedly, a proposal to conserve certain names. From 1905 congress, first set of internationally codified rules was established, which included acceptance of a list of conserved generic names (Nicolson, 2000). Competing codes were not eliminated as a result of 1905 congress, however, but were reduced to two (Weatherby, 1949)-the International Rules (arising basically out of Candollean system) and American Code. Most European taxonomists were unwilling to accept type method, rigid views on priority, or laxity toward use of Latin, supported by American contingent. Through conciliatory efforts, e.g., Hitchcock (1925), agreement on adopting type method for application of names, and on requiring Latin diagnoses for new taxa, was achieved in Cambridge Congress in 1930; Latin requirement did not actually take effect until 1 January, 1935. Botanical congresses since Cambridge, 1930, have not produced such major substantive changes in pursuant editions of botanical code. In spite of rumblings after Yokohama Congress, 1993, regarding adoption of lists and like, deliberations of St. Louis Congress, 1999, led to little significant change in document. There has, thus, been a more than 70year period of relative stability. However, as we approach Vienna Congress, 2005, it appears that taxonomists will again be facing (much as in Vienna Congress of 1905) real possibility of intrusion of several, potentially competitive codes and/or strongly conflicting ideas, each with respective advocates. The codes or putative codes which could significantly affect botanical nomenclature are: International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN); International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP; Trehane & al., 1995), this cultivated code not being competitive against ICBN; PhyloCode; and BioCode. And, now waiting in background is, not Otto Kuntze, but seemingly ever-present urgings for adoption of vetted lists (Hawksworth, 2000; McNeill, 2000). The specter of major alterations of rules, looming again in 2005, as in 1905, pointedly reifies popular expression, the more things change, more they stay same. Of particular concern at this time are implications of implementation of a PhyloCode. The work of de Queiroz & Gauthier (1990, 1994), de Queiroz (1997) and Cantino & al. (1997) led to perception of a need to translate phylogenetic principles directly into nomenclatural practice. Their methodology would apply names to clades, not ranks, and would provide phylogenetic definitions of such names (Stuessy, 2000, 2001, has questioned name definition). Concepts of phylogenetic nomenclature have been merged with, or melded into, present push for rank-free classification and PhyloCode (cf. Hibbett & Donoghue, 1998; Mishler, 2000; Langer, 2001); all of this is based on belief that attempting to prosecute phylogenetic work under Linnaean (and Hennigian) classification proliferate a cumbersome list of names according to rank, putatively anathema to phylogenetic progress; many such names, it is felt, would later have to be disbanded or changed. Though some workers are possibly loath to admit it, unwanted changes now relate to differing results obtained, on same group of organisms, using different types of molecular data and/or different computational methodologies (cf. Daugbjerg & Andersen, 1997; Marshall, 1997; Maley & Marshall, 1998; Waddell & al., 1999). Precepts of phylogenetic nomenclature and rankless systems are embodied in current internet posting of developing PhyloCode (http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/). Text accompanying PhyloCode states that it may be used concurrently with existing codes based on Linnaean nomenclature, implication being that PhyloCode is a document which offer taxonomists additional nomenclatural benefit. However, also stated is

At the Fifteenth International Botanical Congress, those present and voting tentatively endorsed a requirement for the registration of new names of plants and fungi, beginning 1 Jan 2000, contingent on the approval of the Sixteenth International Botanical Congress in St. Louis in Aug 1999. Registration has already been added to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, as paragraphs 32.1, 32.2, and 45.2. Those paragraphs will have to be removed, of course, if the St. Louis Congress defeats registration. As now envisaged, registration would be a mandatory part of valid publication. A name would not be validly published unless and until it were registered, and the date of publication would be the date of registration, not the date of effective publication, as is presently the case. For most groups of plants and fungi, there is already an excellent system in place for recording and reporting new names. It is decentralized (Kew, Harvard, Missouri, etc.) and voluntary, but it works remarkably well. Many authors who publish names in regional works that might be missed by the indexers send reprints to the appropriate centers, for the obvious reason that it is very much in an author's own interest for his or her new names to be recorded promptly so that they will come to the attention of others working on that group. So far as we know, the institutions that perform this service have not complained of the burden or asked for relief, nor has there been any clamor from botanists worldwide for a change in this well-tested mechanism. This raises two obvious questions: If we now have a system that works, why should we change it? And if we do change it, will the new system be better than the old, or will it bring unexpected disadvantages? The problem with registration lies in the fact that it would be mandatory, and in the potential consequences of that fact. While registration has been presented and generally perceived as a neutral mechanism devised for purely innocent purposes, it is important for all taxonomists to understand what a significant, even radical, departure this would be from the Code of Nomenclature that has served us so well for so long. The present Code is a truly neutral set of rules. It states exactly what one must do to validly publish a new name, and if one meets all those requirements, then one's new name is validly published on the day of effective publication. Note that no one can or must approve or disapprove or otherwise intervene. It does not matter what may be the author's nationality, or bias, or peculiarity. If he or she abides by the Code, the name is published on that date, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Compare that to what would be the situation under registration. It would no longer be sufficient to meet all the present requirements. It would not even be sufficient to submit one's new name for registration. Valid publication, and the date of publication, would now depend on the name's acceptance and approval by functionaries at registration centers, and ultimately at the IAPT Secretariat. If we permit registration to become mandatory, we will be creating the potential for abuse by bureaucrats and autocrats who will have the final say as to whether and when our names have been validly published. Let us consider a hypothetical case. Suppose we should discover an old, neglected name in an unused genus for a species that has long been known by a later name in another genus. The Code now permits one to avoid taking up such an older name by proposing the older name for rejection or the later name for conservation. Some taxonomists feel very strongly that one should pursue one of those possibilities, while oth-

SummaryTwo important problems hamper progress towards an unambiguous classification of cultivated plants.The first problem arises from the incompatibility between the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) and the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). The ICBN is restricted to nomenclature, the ICNCP treats nomenclature, classification and registration. Each code has different rules for the naming of hybrids causing ambiguity in the naming of cultivated hybrid plants. The second problem is the insufficient way in which the ICNCP defines the cultivar group, its relation to botanical classification and its nomenclature.This article presents these problems in a general way with the intention to stimulate further discussion, thereby helping to bring into line both Codes with respect to the classification of cultivated plants.

Purpose. The analysis of wheat and rye hybrids naming.Results. Each botanical taxon, within certain limits, has to be of one correct name, which is initial and in the line with the requirements of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature for algae, mushrooms and plants. For Secale × Triticum hybrids, this name is ×Triticosecale. In 1899 Ludwig Wittmack introduced the name Triticosecale publishing it in the materials of the scientific society in Berlin. The publication did not contain references to the Latin names of parental genera, so this name became valid only after publication in 1927, when this disadvantage was corrected by Amy Camus. Other names (×Triticale, ×Tritisecale, ×Secalotricum, ×Secalotriticum) are of secondary priority to ×Triticosecale, as they were published later and therefore are superfluous. Nevertheless, the name Triticale has become widespread and is a common name for a new crop - triticale. In the Ukrainian and Russian specialized literature, the term triticale is used controversially as words of masculine, feminine or neuter genders, so the variety names are of different grammatical genders. The breeders successfully implemented direct and reciprocal crossing of several species of wheat and rye, giving many Latin names for triticale hybrids. Many of these names are formally similar to species names, but usually do not meet the requirements of the nomenclature code and are illegal. Only some of the proposed names are published, but they are not widely used in agronomic practice. At the same time, assigning illegal names to the new triticale hybrids that do not meet nomenclature requirements and increases confusion is still practiced.Conclusions. According to the Rules of the Ukrainian language, the word triticale relates to the neuter grammar gender. It represents a new field crop and is the Ukrainian conformity to the nothogeneric name ×Triticosecale. Most species and sub-species names proposed by breeders for triticale do not meet the requirements of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature for algae, mushrooms and plants. For ordering the varietal diversity of triticale names, it is worthwhile to apply the recommendations of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, which standardizes the names of varieties and their groups.

The typographical layout of the present Draft conforms to that of the International code of botanical nomenclature (Tokyo Code) (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 131. 1994, abbreviated ICBN hereafter) and therefore differs from the usual Taxon style, and also from that of the current editions of the International code of zoological nomenclature (Ride & al., London, 1985: the ICZN) and of the International code of nomenclature of bacteria (Lapage & al., Washington, 1992: the BC). The Draft does not yet include Recommendations, Notes, or Examples. For further relevant explanations, botanists may find it useful to refer to the Introductory comments by Greuter & Nicolson (in Taxon 45: 343-348. 1996), a document initially prepared for the benefit of members of the General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature, now published in a slightly updated form. A set of explanatory Notes addressed to all biologists interested in nomenclatural matters is in preparation and expected to be ready for distribution at a half-day symposium on The New Bionomenclature at the Fifth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB V) in Budapest, 17-24 August 1996 (see Hawksworth in Taxon 44: 447-456. 1995). To help all interested biologists who wish to compare the proposed new rules with the corresponding entries in the current Codes (BC, ICBN, ICZN), cross-references

A proposal is submitted to the ICSP to change the wording of General Consideration 5 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP), deleting the words Schizophycetes, Cyanophyceae and Cyanobacteria from the groups of organisms whose nomenclature is covered by the Code. It is further proposed to change the terms Zoological Code and International Code of Botanical Nomenclature in General Consideration 5 and in Principle 2 to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants, respectively.

Changes to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are decided on every 6 years at Nomenclature Sections associated with International Botanical Congresses (IBC). The XVIII IBC was held in Melbourne, Australia; the Nomenclature Section met on 18-22 July 2011 and its decisions were accepted by the Congress at its plenary session on 30 July. Several important changes were made to the Code as a result of this meeting that will affect publication of new names. Two of these changes will come into effect on 1 January 2012, some months before the Melbourne Code is published. Electronic material published online in Portable Document Format (PDF) with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) will constitute effective publication, and the requirement for a Latin description or diagnosis for names of new taxa will be changed to a requirement for a description or diagnosis in either Latin or English. In addition, effective from 1 January 2013, new names of organisms treated as fungi must, in order to be validly published, include in the protologue (everything associated with a name at its valid publication) the citation of an identifier issued by a recognized repository (such as MycoBank). Draft text of the new articles dealing with electronic publication is provided and best practice is outlined. To encourage dissemination of the changes made to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, this article will be published in Brittonia, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, BMC Evolutionary Biology, Cladistics, Mycotaxon, MycoKeys, New Phytologist, North American Fungi, Novon, Opuscula Philolichenum, PhytoKeys, Phytoneuron, Phytotaxa, Plant Diversity and Resources, Systematic Botany and Taxon .

Changes to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are decided upon every six years at Nomenclature Sections associated with International Botanical Congresses (IBC). The XVIII IBC was held in Melbourne, Australia; the Nomenclature Section met on 18–22 July 2011 and its decisions were accepted by the Congress at its plenary session on 30 July. Several important changes were made to the Code as a result of this meeting that will affect publication of new names. Two of these changes will come into effect on 1 January 2012, some months before the Melbourne Code is published. Electronic material published online in Portable Document Format (PDF) with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) or an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) will constitute effective publication, and the requirement for a Latin description or diagnosis for names of new taxa will be changed to a requirement for a description or diagnosis in either Latin or English. In addition, effective from 1 January 2013, new names of organisms treated as fungi must, in order to be validly published, include in the protologue (everything associated with a name at its valid publication) the citation of an identifier issued by a recognized repository (e.g. MycoBank). Draft text of the new articles to do with publication is provided and best practice is outlined. © The Authors. Journal compilation © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 167, 133–136. To encourage dissemination of the changes made to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, this article will be published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, Brittonia, Cladistics, MycoKeys, Mycotaxon, New Phytologist, North American Fungi, Novon, Opuscula Philolichenum, PhytoKeys, Phytoneuron, Phytotaxa, Plant Diversity and Resources, Systematic Botany and Taxon.

Virus taxonomy: one step forward, two steps back.