One­hundred­year code déjà vu?

Abstract

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