Permanently and retroactively eradicating certain offensive epithets from the scientific names of algae, fungi, and plants: ‘afr-’ is in

It was recently stated in Megataxa that: “Of course, we have a duty to eliminate obviously hurtful and discriminatory words from the scientific lexicon” (Pethiyagoda (2023: 24). However, contrasting with this statement, Pethiyagoda (2023) broadly supports retention of the status quo regarding the present-day names and epithets in use in the biological sciences, and the terminology used in other sciences. With reference to a proposal to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Turland et al. 2018), adoption of which would eliminate epithets with the root ca[f]f[e]r- from the scientific nomenclature in use for algae, fungi, and plants (Smith & Figueiredo 2021), Pethiyagoda (2023: 21) further stated that: “They [Hammer & Thiele (2021)] cite, for example, a proposal by Smith & Figueiredo (2021)”. This statement is not correct. Both Hammer & Thiele (2021) and Smith & Figueiredo (2021) were published on “15 December 2021”, and Hammer & Thiele (2021) could not have cited Smith & Figueiredo (2021). To prevent any misconceptions that might result from Pethiyagoda’s statement, we here note that Hammer & Thiele (2021) and Smith & Figueiredo (2021) were not aware of each other’s work until it was published.

A Special-purpose Committee on Virtual Participation in the Nomenclature Section (NS) was established at the XIX International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen, China in 2017 (Wilson in Taxon 68: 160–162. 2019). The mandate of this Special-purpose Committee is "to investigate the possibility of and mechanisms for virtual participation and voting in the Nomenclature Section of an International Botanical Congress via the internet". After discussing the concepts of virtual participation and voting, we have arrived at various suggestions, which are discussed in the accompanying report of the Committee (Landrum & al. in Taxon 70: 1399–1401. 2021). We realize that virtual or online participation in the NS would be a significant change to the International Code of nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Code, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) and can only be accepted as a change after its feasibility has been proven. Therefore, we are proposing that a trial be conducted at the NS of the next International Botanical Congress. Nevertheless, we are formally proposing additions to Div. III of the Code that can be considered near the end of the NS if the trial proves successful. "4.new1. Interested individuals or groups are to be able to observe the Nomenclature Section of an International Botanical Congress online on the World Wide Web. The Organizing Committee of the International Botanical Congress in consultation with the Bureau of Nomenclature are together responsible for ensuring that this is implemented." "4.new2. Individuals or groups without voting rights observing the Nomenclature Section online on the World Wide Web will not be charged for this service, or a small fee will be set at the discretion of the Organizing Committee of the International Botanical Congress in consultation with the Bureau of Nomenclature." "4.new3. Registered members of the Nomenclature Section (with voting rights) attending online on the World Wide Web (online members) will pay fees similar to those that they would pay if they attended in person." "4.new4. Individuals desiring to be online members of the Nomenclature Section will register their intention to participate in advance of the Nomenclature Section, by a date to be determined by the Organizing Committee of the International Botanical Congress in consultation with the Bureau of Nomenclature." "5.new1. Online members of the Nomenclature Section may accumulate and cast institutional votes just as in-person members (see Prov. 5.9(b))." "Recommendation 1. The Nomenclature Section should take place in a country and place where broadcasting the Nomenclature Section on the web is possible and allowed." "Recommendation 2. Local groups of non-voting observers, and members (online and in-person), of the Nomenclature Section are encouraged to meet together before and during the Section to facilitate discussion of proposals, including the results of the preliminary guiding vote (see Prov. 2.5)." "Recommendation 3. When proposals or amendments to proposals are introduced during the Nomenclature Section without having been published beforehand, voting on them should be delayed, to alert members (online and in-person) who may not be present for the whole Section." "Recommendation 4. Written recognition for participation in the Nomenclature Section should be provided to members (online and in-person) by the Organizing Committee of the International Botanical Congress." We thank Nicholas J. Turland (B; Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) and John H. Wiersema (US; Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) for their useful comments and suggestions to improve these proposals.

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.

(286–289) Proposals on institutional votes, especially to reduce geographical imbalance

The Special Committee on Registration of Algal and Plant Names (including fossils) was established at the XVIII International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Melbourne in 2011, its mandate being to consider what would be involved in registering algal and plant names (including fossils), using a procedure analogous to that for fungal names agreed upon in Melbourne and included as Art. 42 in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. Because experience with voluntary registration was key to persuading mycologists of the advantages of mandatory registration, we began by asking institutions with a history of nomenclatural indexing to develop mechanisms that would permit registration. The task proved more difficult than anticipated, but considerable progress has been made, as is described in this report. It also became evident that the Nomenclature Section needs a structure that will allow ongoing discussion of registration and associated issues. Simultaneously with this report we are submitting four proposals that would provide such a structure.

Background: The International Botanical Congress takes place more or less every six years. In the week preceding this conference, a meeting of the Nomenclature Section is held to consider proposals, both published and from the floor, to amend the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. Objectives: To report on the most significant outcomes of the deliberations that took place during, and decisions taken at, the Nomenclature Section and the final plenary session of the XXth International Botanical Congress that was held in Madrid, Spain, in July 2024. Methods: Decisions relevant to workers on South African algae, fungi and plants are summarised from the published reports of the relevant Permanent Nomenclature Committees and the General Committee, as well as from the published report of congress action. Results: This contribution is a summary of the most important decisions taken at the Nomenclature Section meeting and International Botanical Congress in Madrid, specifically highlighting those outcomes that are important for South African phycologists, mycologists and botanists.

Changes to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are decided upon every 6 years at Nomenclature Sections that are part of International Botanical Congresses (IBC). How the Code is amended? The decision to conserve the name Acacia with a new type from Australia, one of the most heated and polarized debates over botanical nomenclature, casting doubt over the legitimacy of the procedure and botanical decision-making is taken as example. Despite a website www.acaciavote.com, for which by July 2011, the votes were: 7 659 opposing the re-typification of Acacia, including 101 votes from people in Australia, and only 110 accepting the re-typification, did not make any affect to influence to amend the Code? Only delegates present at the Nomenclature Section and the number of active institutional votes that they carry can decide the changes to the Code; from 878 distributed to registered herbaria only 396 of these were taken to Melbourne. Australia and the United States were the countries with the largest number of votes. There is little participation of Latin American Countries, in general of developing countries, how this can be increased and effective throughout herbaria institutional votes? In this note the steps to follow up are given.

Changes to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature are decided upon every 6 years at Nomenclature Sections that are part of International Botanical Congresses (IBC). How the Code is amended? The “decision” to conserve the name Acacia with a new type from Australia, one of the most heated and polarized debates over botanical nomenclature, casting doubt over the legitimacy of the procedure and botanical decision-making is taken as example.Despite a website www.acaciavote.com, for which by July 2011, the votes were: 7 659 opposing the re-typification of Acacia, including 101 votes from people in Australia, and only 110 accepting the re-typification, did not make any affect to influence to amend the Code? Only delegates present at the Nomenclature Section and the number of active institutional votes that they carry can decide the changes to the Code; from 878 distributed to registered herbaria only396 of these were taken to Melbourne. Australia and the United States were the countries with the largest number of votes. There is little participation of Latin American Countries, in general of developing countries, how this can beincreased and effective throughout herbaria institutional votes? In this note the steps to follow up are given.

The Tokyo (Greuter & al., 1994), incorporating changes adopted at the XV International Botanical Congress in Yokohama, was published in August 1994. In accordance with its, Division III (Provisions for modification of the Code), the Code may be modified only by action of a plenary session of an International Botanical Congress on a resolution moved by the Nomenclature Section of that Congress. The next Congress will be held in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1999. Anyone proposing changes in the Code should be familiar with the basic procedure: (1) After each new edition appears, to amend it are published in Taxon (see below), where they are numbered serially. (2) Prior to the next International Botanical Congress, a Synopsis of proposals assembles all of these, organized by Article and Recommendation, and republishes them with appropriate comments from the Rapporteurs but without the justification accompanying the original publication. (3) A ballot for the Preliminary Mail Vote (an entirely advisory opinion from individuals) is sent to those entitled to vote in the same time as the Synopsis, and the ballots are tabulated so that the results are available at the nomenclature sessions of the Congress. (4) The Nomenclature Section, meeting ahead of the main sessions of the Congress, considers proposals, including any amendments offered, and acts upon them on the basis of a combination of individual and institutional votes. (5) Decisions of the Nomenclature Section are ratified by vote of a plenary session of the Congress. Details of the method of appointment of the Rapporteurs, and of those eligible to vote in the Preliminary Mail ballot and at the nomenclature sessions of the Congress, appear in the Code, Division III.

PhytoKeys was established less than a year ago in response to four main publication challenges of our time: (1) the appearance of electronic publications as amendments or even alternatives to paper publications; (2) Open Access (OA) as a new publishing model; (3) the linkage of electronic registers, indices, and aggregators, which summarize information on biological species through taxonomic names or their persistent identifiers; and (4) Web 2.0 technologies, which permit the semantic markup of, and semantic enhancements to, published biological texts. The appearance of the journal was concomitant with lively discussions on the validity of nomenclatural acts published electronically (Knapp and Wright 2010, Knapp et al. 2010, Penev et al. 2010, Chapman et al. 2010). At the XVIII International Botanical Congress in Melbourne in July 2011 (IBC 2011) these discussions culminated in the decision to amend the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature to allow electronic-only publishing of new taxa. Even before the end of the Congress and formal acceptance of the changes PhytoKeys was able to publish a report on the main outcomes of the Nomenclature Section on electronic publishing (Miller et al. 2011).

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

We here document what happened in Melbourne, Australia, in July 2011, regarding the confirmation of the inclusion of Acacia Mill. with A. penninervis as its conserved type in the Vienna Code. The procedures followed by the Nomenclature Section of the XVIII International Botanical Congress (IBC) are outlined and briefly described as far as they pertain to Acacia. The 2005 outcome of the controversial proposal to retypify Acacia Mill. from an African to an Australian type was confirmed by the Nomenclature Section following the ratification of the 2006, Vienna, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN or Code) including the entry for Acacia. This, and other, decisions of the Nomenclature Section were in turn ratified by the final closing plenary session of the IBC held on 30 July 2011. The now‐effective Code (incidentally in the future the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants) emanating from the XVIII IBC, will therefore include Acacia, with a conserved type, in the Appendix dealing with "Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda". If the traditional classification system is followed that applies the name Acacia in a broad sense to an assemblage of legume species comprising a number of subgenera, this decision holds no implications at generic rank. However, should the alternative classification which segregates a broadly defined Acacia into a number of genera be followed, then the name Acacia would apply in a strict sense to the mainly Australian wattles (formerly Acacia subg. Phyllodineae, now Acacia subg. Acacia).

Each personal member of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy is entitled to participate in the Preliminary Mail Vote on nomenclature proposals submitted to the XVIII International Botanical Congress, as stated in Division III of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006). Authors of proposals to amend the Code and members of the Permanent Nomenclature Committees (described in Div. III.2) are also entitled to participate, but no institutional votes are allowed. A voting form is inserted in this issue of Taxon and, if lost, available from www .iapt-taxon.org (sub Nomenclature). The voting forms (ballots) should be returned to the IAPT Office, Institute of Botany, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, A-1030, Vienna, Austria, by 31 May 2011, so that they may be included in the tabulation to be made available to members of the Nomenclature Section of the Congress. The sessions of the Nomenclature Section, which will take definitive action on proposals, will be held in the Copland Theatre, Economics and Commerce Building 148, University of Melbourne (Parkville campus), Melbourne, Australia, from Monday, 18 July 2011 (09:00 hours) to Friday, 22 July 2011 (see http://www.ibc2011.com/ NomenclatureSection.htm). Each person registered for at least one full day of the Congress is entitled to enrol as a member of the Nomenclature Section. Registration for the Congress should be done in advance (see http://www .ibc2011.com/Registration.htm); the confirmation received will be the evidence of eligibility for registration for the Nomenclature Section, which will start during a welcoming reception on Sunday, 17 July, at 16:00 hours at The School of Botany Building 122 on the Parkville campus; Nomenclature Section registration will continue on Monday, 18 July at 08:00 hours at the Copland Theatre. Each member of the Nomenclature Section is entitled to one personal vote in the sessions. Personal votes can neither be transferred nor accumulated; one person never receives more than one personal vote. A member of the Nomenclature Section may be the official delegate of one or more institutions, thereby carrying their votes, but no one person is allowed more than 15 votes (including his or her personal vote). Official delegates are required to submit their credentials and to collect their voting cards when registering for the Nomenclature Section. Institutions are being advised of their allocation of votes in March 2011, in accordance with Division III of the Code. INTRODUCTION

Each personal member of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy is entitled to participate in the Preliminary Mail Vote on nomenclature proposals submitted to the XVIII International Botanical Congress, as stated in Division III of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006). Authors of proposals to amend the Code and members of the Permanent Nomenclature Committees (described in Div. III.2) are also entitled to participate, but no institutional votes are allowed. A voting form is inserted in this issue of Taxon and, if lost, available from www .iapt-taxon.org (sub Nomenclature). The voting forms (ballots) should be returned to the IAPT Office, Institute of Botany, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, A-1030, Vienna, Austria, by 31 May 2011, so that they may be included in the tabulation to be made available to members of the Nomenclature Section of the Congress. The sessions of the Nomenclature Section, which will take definitive action on proposals, will be held in the Copland Theatre, Economics and Commerce Building 148, University of Melbourne (Parkville campus), Melbourne, Australia, from Monday, 18 July 2011 (09:00 hours) to Friday, 22 July 2011 (see http://www.ibc2011.com/ NomenclatureSection.htm). Each person registered for at least one full day of the Congress is entitled to enrol as a member of the Nomenclature Section. Registration for the Congress should be done in advance (see http://www .ibc2011.com/Registration.htm); the confirmation received will be the evidence of eligibility for registration for the Nomenclature Section, which will start during a welcoming reception on Sunday, 17 July, at 16:00 hours at The School of Botany Building 122 on the Parkville campus; Nomenclature Section registration will continue on Monday, 18 July at 08:00 hours at the Copland Theatre. Each member of the Nomenclature Section is entitled to one personal vote in the sessions. Personal votes can neither be transferred nor accumulated; one person never receives more than one personal vote. A member of the Nomenclature Section may be the official delegate of one or more institutions, thereby carrying their votes, but no one person is allowed more than 15 votes (including his or her personal vote). Official delegates are required to submit their credentials and to collect their voting cards when registering for the Nomenclature Section. Institutions are being advised of their allocation of votes in March 2011, in accordance with Division III of the Code. INTRODUCTION

Taxonomy and nomenclature cannot be separated. Taxonomic results can be expressed only through nomenclature, and therefore the system of nomenclature in use at any time constitutes a framework within which taxonomists must work. The existing system of zoological nomenclature cannot function simultaneously for traditional methods and for the quantitative methods that will be necessary in the near future. The rigid framework of a mandatory Code, and in particular its type-system are incompatible with quantitative methods based on a long series of specimens. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should plan for a date, not too far ahead, after which all traditional taxonomy shall cease at the species-level and below. The Commission should give a lead in exploring the problems and possibilities of quantitative methods, and in devising an entirely new nomenclature appropriate to these. Above the species-level, traditional methods should continue, but the Code should cease to be mandatory, and names should be stabilised by usage. Every practising taxonomist must sometime stop and wonder what his successors will be doing a century hence. The procedure for giving a name to a newly discovered species of animal today is still substantially that followed by Linnaeus in his Systema Naturae, Ed. X (1758), though the outlook of the taxonomist and his purpose in making the description have changed considerably. For how long can this 200year old method continue? Are the methods which Linnaeus devised to systematize a small range of divinely-created forms the best way of handling a world population of insects vastly greater than Linnaeus envisaged, and itself reacting to a rapidly changing physical environment? Insect Taxonomy Today Insect taxonomy is intimately linked with insect nomenclature, and neither is possible without the other. In spite of many opinions to the contrary, is not possible to talk about taxonomy without also talking about nomenclature, and so the scheme of nomenclature in general use inevitably determines the framework within which taxonomic work must be presented. The preface to the current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature states that: c. . . the Code refrains from impinging upon taxonomic judgment, which must not be made subject to regulation or restraint. Harmony with taxonomy, however the latter fluctuates, is secured by the of .... This last sentence is an understatement. The device of types does more than secure harmony between nomenclature and taxonomy; it effectively dictates the kind of taxonomy that is possible under the Code, and it is therefore a good startingpoint from which to study the taxonomic practice of the present day.