General Committee Research Articles

Splenectomy Reports

Introduction It was seen that splenectomy creates a disability situation in an individual, and in order to eliminate it, people applied to health boards to get a report to eliminate their social and economic losses recognized to them. Objective To examine the reason for surgery, method of surgery and the type of report they wanted to receive in splenectomised patients who applied to the general surgery committee polyclinic in 2017-2018-2019-2020 and 2023 when the pandemic ended. Materials and Methods Patients who applied to general surgery outpatient clinics were asked whether they had any surgery related to general surgery, and epicrises and pathology results of splenectomised patients were seen and recorded. Results Of the 23 splenectomised patients, 15 were female and 8 were male. Of the 15 female patients, 3 were splenectomised for ovarian ca, 3 for gastric ca, 2 for distal pancreatic ca, 2 for lymphoma, 1 for colon ca, 1 for traumatic cause, 2 for ITP, 1 for sarcoidosis. In male patients, 4 were splenectomised for traumatic, 1 for colon ca, 1 for ITP, 1 for thalassemia major and 1 for CML. The mean age of female patients was 48.1 years and the mean age of male patients was 37.4 years. The most common reason for splenectomy in women was malignancy and the most common reason for splenectomy in men was trauma. Conclusion Splenectomized patients had applied to receive the most DSR.

Report of the General Committee: 31

SummaryDecisions of the General Committee are reported on proposals and requests in Report 18 of the Nomenclature Committee (NC) for Fossils, Report 75 of the NC for Vascular Plants, and Report 24 of the NC for Fungi. The latter also included additions to the list of protected names. Proposal (2072) in NC for Fungi Report 22 is recommended.

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

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.

Report of the General Committee: 30

SummaryDecisions of the General Committee are reported on proposals and requests in Report 25 of the Nomenclature Committee (NC) for Algae, Reports 22 and 23 of the NC for Fungi, Report 15 of the NC for Bryophytes and Report 17 of the NC for Fossils. Report 23 of the NC for Fungi also included five lists of protected fungal names for formal approval.

Preface

This volume contains a unique collection of papers presented at The International Conference on Advanced Materials and Fluid Mechanics (ICAMFM-2023) which was held on November 23-24, 2023 at BNM Institute of Technology, Bengaluru, India in hybrid mode organized by the departments of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Mechanical Engineering. The goal of the conference was to bring together professionals, academicians, scientists, researchers, and experts from India and other countries. This conference was dedicated to Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam in recognition of his contributions to the field of Material Science.In the rapidly evolving landscape of materials science and fluid mechanics, this conference served as a dynamic platform for the exchange of innovative ideas, ground-breaking research findings, and collaborative discussions. The diverse range of topics covered in this conference reflects the interdisciplinary nature of these fields and highlights the collective effort to address current challenges and explore future opportunities.The conference brought together leading experts, academicians, and industry professionals from around the globe, fostering a rich tapestry of perspectives and insights. The engaging presentations, interactive discussions, and networking opportunities facilitated during the event have undoubtedly contributed to the growth and advancement of knowledge in these crucial domains.We are immensely grateful to the keynote speakers, session chairs, and all participants for their invaluable contributions that made this conference a resounding success. The dedication and enthusiasm demonstrated by each attendee have not only enriched our understanding of advanced materials and fluid mechanics but have also inspired collaborative endeavors that will undoubtedly shape the future of these fields.We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the management, organizing committee, sponsors, and volunteers who worked tirelessly to ensure the seamless execution of this conference. Their commitment and hard work have played a pivotal role in creating a vibrant and intellectually stimulating environment. Last but not least, we are thankful to the IOP Science for their support, it was not only the support but also an inspiration for organizers.As we reflect on the accomplishments of this conference, we are confident that the knowledge shared and connections forged will continue to resonate in the research community, fostering innovation and advancements in the realms of advanced materials and fluid mechanics.Thank you for being part of this enriching experience, and we look forward to witnessing the continued impact of the knowledge exchanged during the International Conference on Advanced Materials and Fluid Mechanics (ICAMFM-2023).List of Conference General Chairs and Committee are available in this pdf.

Report of the General Committee: 29

SummaryDecisions of the General Committee are reported on proposals and requests in Report 74 of the Permanent Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants and on two older proposals: 2550 (Plagiomnium) and 2786 (Ipomoea). The General Committee has approved the list of institutional votes for the Nomenclature Section of the XX International Botanical Congress in Madrid.

Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi: 24

SummaryAn addition to the list of names for protection under Art. F.2.1 from the Cordyceps Working Group, containing two names of genera, is approved. The following two family names are recommended for conservation: Physaraceae against Fuliginaceae; and Metschnikowiaceae against Nectaromycetaceae and Torulopsidaceae. The following six generic names are recommended for conservation: Blastomyces Gilchrist & W.R. Stokes against Blastomyces Costantin & Rolland; Cercospora with a conserved type; Didymium against Mucilago and Spumaria; Discula with a conserved type; Metschnikowia against Torulopsis; and Phyllopsora against Triclinum and Crocynia. The proposal concerning the gender of the genus Glomus is referred to the General Committee. The following 15 species names are recommended for conservation: Agaricus cingulatus (Tricholoma cingulatum) against A. ramentaceus; A. psammopus (Tricholoma psammopus) against A. concolor; Apioporthe corni (Aurantioporthe corni, Cryptodiaporthe corni) against Sphaeronaema aurantiacum and Myxosporium nitidum; Ditiola mucida (Holwaya mucida) against Acrospermum caliciiforme (Crinula caliciiformis); Entoloma sericeum against Agaricus pascuus (E. pascuum); Geoglossum uliginosum Hakelier against G. uliginosum (Pers.) P. Crouan & H. Crouan; Microsphaera alphitoides (Erysiphe alphitoides) with a conserved type; Peziza cinnamomea (Pezicula cinnamomea) against Naemaspora grisea; Phyllosticta yuccae against Leptodothiorella notabilis; Puccinia psidii (Austropuccinia psidii) against Caeoma eugeniarum and Uredo neurophila; Tolypocladium inflatum against Cordyceps subsessilis; Tricholoma sciodes against Agaricus hordus; Tuber aestivum Vittad. against T. aestivum (Wulfen) Spreng. and T. blotii; T. magnatum against T. griseum; and T. melanosporum against T. nigrum. The following two species names are recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Ramularia gibba and Tuber cibarium. Proposal 2307 (concerning Hypocrea lutea (Tode) Petch) is no longer relevant, following the removal in the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) of Art. 57.2 of the Melbourne Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012). Proposal 2233 (to conserve Bipolaris against Cochliobolus) and four proposals concerning names in Trichoderma and Hypocrea (2305, 2306, 2308 and 2309) have been withdrawn because the names were included in a list for protection from an approved working group: for Bipolaris, the Dothideomycetes Working Group, and for Trichoderma, the International Subcommission on Trichoderma and Hypocrea. Three works by Paulet, the unpaginated “Index” of Traité des champignons and two editions of Tabula plantarum fungosarum, are recommended for suppression under Art. 34.

Institutional Votes at the XX International Botanical Congress, Madrid, 2024: Report of the Committee on Institutional Votes

AbstractThe Committee on Institutional Votes was established at the XIX International Botanical Congress (IBC), in Shenzhen in 2017, with the mandate to maintain a list of institutions and their allocated votes for the upcoming IBC, the next of which will be the XX IBC in Madrid in July 2024. Institutions worldwide were informed of the mechanism to apply for one or more institutional votes or to request a change in previously allocated votes. Forty applications were received by the Committee, of which 28 were from institutions new to the list, 9 requested an increase in allocated votes and 3 requested no change to allocated votes. All requests were accepted, two of them partly so. Adjustments were also made for two institutions that had been closed or transferred. The Committee sent a draft of this report together with the revised list for Madrid to the General Committee for final approval, as required by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. The General Committee approved the list, which is now presented here. The total number of institutions on the list is 572; the total number of institutional votes that could potentially be exercised is 970. Only 30.4% of institutions exercised their votes in Shenzhen in 2017. Institutions are urged to exercise their votes in Madrid in 2024, and instructions for this are provided.

Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi: 22

SummaryInformation on appointments to the Fungal Nomenclature Bureau is provided. Appointments to two Special‐purpose Committees are reported. The following four generic names are recommended for conservation: Bilimbia with a conserved type; Coccotrema against Lepolichen; Fuscidea against Maronea; and Leptogium (lichenized Ascomycota) with a conserved type. The following two generic names are not recommended for conservation: Marcelaria against Buscalionia; and Variolaria Pers. against Lepra and Variolaria Bull. The following seven species names are recommended for conservation: Lecidea parmeliarum (Abrothallus parmeliarum) against Endocarpon parasiticum; Lichen cervinus (Acarospora cervina) with a conserved type; L. ferrugineus (Blastenia ferruginea) with a conserved type; L. flavus Bellardi (Pleopsidium flavum) against L. flavus Schreb.; Megaspora verrucosa (Ach.) Arcadia & A. Nordin against M. verrucosa Hafellner & V. Wirth.; Umbilicaria spodochroa with a conserved type and with that spelling; and Usnea fulvoreagens with a conserved type. The following three species names are not recommended for conservation: Alectoria fuscescens (Bryoria fuscescens), nom. cons., against the additional names Usnea implexa, A. capillaris, A. cana, A. rubens, A. fuscidula, A. degenii, A. forissii, A. ostrobotniae, A. kuemmerleana, A. haynaldiae, A. achariana, A. lanestris, A. prostratosteola, and A. viridescens; Lichen fuscovirens (Collema fuscovirens) against L. pulcher; and Ochrolechia szatalaensis against Pertusaria poriniza. The following two species names are recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Lecidea cornea and Lichen conspurcatus. The following generic name is recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Huea (and the original proposal to conserve Huea with a conserved type is not recommended). It is recommended that the species name Variolaria torta not be rejected under Art. 56. The proposal to conserve Pertusariaceae against Variolariaceae is considered unnecessary because the latter name is illegitimate. The Nomenclature Committee for Fungi could not arrive at a recommendation on the proposal to conserve Lagerheimia (De Toni) Chodat against Lagerheima Sacc. and nor resolve requests for binding decisions on whether the pair Geisleria Nitschke and Geissleria Lange‐Bert. & Metzeltin and the pair Lagerheima Sacc. and Lagerheimia (De Toni) Chodat are sufficiently alike to be confused – but these three items have now been resolved by the General Committee.

Report of the General Committee: 28

SummaryDecisions of the General Committee are reported on the proposals in Report 24 of the Permanent Nomenclature Committee for Algae and Report 14 of the Permanent Nomenclature Committee for Bryophytes, and on two proposals in Report 73 of the Permanent Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants.

Report of the General Committee: 27

SummaryDecisions of the General Committee are reported on the second half of the proposals and requests in Report 73 of the Permanent Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants. Proposal (2402) on Chenopodium is noted as being unnecessary.

Comparing the accuracy of positive and negative indocyanine green staining in guiding laparoscopic anatomical liver resection: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

IntroductionKnowledge of the clinical liver anatomy has evolved with advanced imaging modalities and laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, precise anatomical resection knowledge has become the standard treatment for primary and secondary liver...

Report of the General Committee: 26

SummaryDecisions of the General Committee are reported on about half of the proposals and requests in Report 73 of the Permanent Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants and Report 16 of the Permanent Nomenclature Committee for Fossils. As specified by the Code, the GC was consulted by the NC Fungi on several matters relating only to fungi.

Poster 372: Women in Leadership in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Societies Throughout the World

Objectives: The proportion of women in orthopaedic surgery is low compared to other specialties, despite a equal numbers of women and men entering the field of medicine. This gender disparity persists across various aspects of orthopaedic sports medicine. The purpose of this study was to characterize the number of women in leadership positions in orthopaedic sports medicine and arthroscopy societies throughout the world and compare the percentages of women vs men in leadership positions. Methods: Publicly available websites for orthopaedic sports medicine societies throughout the world were evaluated during March 2022. Non-surgical sports medicine societies were excluded, as were societies lacking publicly available leadership information. Data were collected as listed on the websites, and categorized into Board of Directors, Executive Committee, Office, Council (all typically included Presidential line, Vice-President, Treasurer, Secretary, or other specific high-ranking members), and Committee Chairs (excluded general committee members). Results: Of the 46 societies, 16 (34.8%) were in Europe, 10 (21.7%) in Asia, 6 (13.0%) in South America, 5 (10.9%) in North America, 3 in the Middle East (6.5%), 2 in Africa (4.4%), 2 in Australia (4.4%), and 2 were international organizations (4.4%). Four countries had more than one orthopaedic sports medicine society: Argentina, Israel, Australia, and Mexico. As represented by Figure 1, the Board of Directors were comprised of 2.5% women (4/161), the Executive Committees were 7.1% women (11/154), Committee Chairs were 9.4% women (13/138), Officers were 15.8% women (3/19), Councils were 5.9% women (1/17), and Spokespersons were 16.7% women (1/6). For the Board of Directors, North America and Europe led in women representation with 4.0% and 3.8%, South America had 2.0%, and societies from the Middle East and Asia reported no women. Regarding Executive Committee, North America had the most women with 27.8%, and the remaining regions ranged from 0.0-7.9%. For Committee Chairs, both European and International societies had around 8% women in leadership (8.0% and 7.7%, respectively), yet North America had double with 16.7% women. Of the regions reporting Officers, Asia and Europe had similar percentages (16.7% and 18.2%), whereas Australia reported zero women in office. Only one region reported electing a Council and two regions listed Spokespersons. Conclusions: This study highlights the gender disparities in leadership positions in orthopaedic sports medicine societies throughout the world. The visibility of women in high-ranking positions may contribute to the interest of women and other minorities in the field of sports medicine and help improve diversity. Future studies should investigate factors contributing to the paucity of women in leadership positions and identify ways to increase the proportion of women in orthopaedic sports medicine.

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

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

(242–244) Proposals to clarify the use of the terms “name” and “designation” and add a definition of “potential name” (Articles 6.3, 12.1 and 38.4)

Article 6.3 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) states “In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word ‘name’ means a name that has been validly published, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate”. In many cases, “otherwise indicated” is implicit. We propose that Art. 6.3 state that the contrary usage may be implicit. The Shenzhen Code sometimes uses the term “designation” to refer to a name that is not validly published. In the Glossary, the term “designation” appears as “designation. [Not defined] – the term used for what appears to be a name but that (1) has not been validly published and hence is not a name in the sense of the Code (Art. 6.3) or (2) is not to be regarded as a name (Art. 20.4 and 23.6) (see also type designation).” The term “designation” has two meanings in the Shenzhen Code: (1) a “name” that is actually not a name in the sense of the Code and (2) as defined in the Glossary under type designation, an explicit statement that establishes the type of a name. In at least one case, they are used in the same sentence. Article 40 Ex. 4 states: “‘Baloghia pininsularis’ was published by Guillaumin (in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., B, Bot. 8: 260. 1962) with two cited gatherings: Baumann 13813 and Baumann 13823. Because the author failed to designate one of them as the type, the designation was not validly published. […].” Moreover, the two usages have different connotations: a type designation is generally an effective typification, whereas a designation in the other sense is not a validly published name. The rules do not provide an appropriate term for a name/designation whose status has not yet been determined. For example, if an application is made to the General Committee to decide if a “descriptive statement” is a validating description or diagnosis (Art. 38.4), it is unknown if there is a name or a designation until the decision is made. While the rules already use phrases such as “intended name” or “intended new combination” (Art. 41 Ex. 25 and Art. 43 Ex. 1), those terms are always used for designations. We suggest the term “potential name” be used if the status has not been determined. We offer the following proposals to introduce this new term and provide flexibility as to when it is used. “6.3. In this Code, unless otherwise explicitly indicated or implicitly used otherwise, the word “name” means a name that has been validly published, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate (see Art. 12; but see Art. 14.9 and 14.14). The word “designation” is used for what appears to be a name but that (1) has not been validly published and hence is not a name in the sense of this Code or (2) is not to be regarded as a name (Art. 20.4 and 23.6). The term “potential name” may be used for what appears to be a name before its status as a name or designation has been determined.” In addition, we recommend that the Editorial Committee use “designation” as infrequently as possible when referring to a name that is not validly published, as opposed to a type designation. We prefer “name that has not been validly published” instead of “designation that has not been validly published.” “38.4. […] A Committee recommendation as to whether or not the potential name concerned is validly published may then be put forward to an International Botanical Congress and, if ratified, will become a binding decision with retroactive effect. […].” A statement to the effect that a name is not validly published, while technically correct because Art. 6.3 allows a name to be used as such “if indicated otherwise”, is still somewhat contradictory. We prefer the following formulation. “12.1. A potential name of a taxon has no status under this Code unless it is validly published (see Art. 6.3; but see Art. 14.9 and 14.14).” We thank Nicholas J. Turland and John H. Wiersema for their most helpful comments and suggested revisions to the text.

(2952) Proposal to conserve the name Coccidioides posadasii against Posadasia esferiformis, Coccidium posadasi, Pseudococcidioides mazzae, Geotrichum louisianoideum, Glenospora meteuropea, Glenospora metamericana and Trichosporon proteolyticum (Ascomycota)

(2952) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Coccidioides posadasii</i> against <i>Posadasia esferiformis</i>, <i>Coccidium posadasi</i>, <i>Pseudococcidioides mazzae</i>, <i>Geotrichum louisianoideum</i>, <i>Glenospora meteuropea</i>, <i>Glenospora metamericana</i> and <i>Trichosporon proteolyticum</i> (<i>Ascomycota</i>)

(218–220) Proposals to authorize binding decisions to be implemented upon General Committee approval of a recommendation, subject to ratification by a later International Botanical Congress

(218–220) Proposals to authorize binding decisions to be implemented upon General Committee approval of a recommendation, subject to ratification by a later International Botanical Congress

(2951) Proposal to conserve Malus domestica, nom. cons., against the additional name, M. sylvestris (Rosaceae)

(2951) Malus domestica (Suckow) Borkh., Theor. Prakt. Handb. Forstbot.: 1272. 1803 (Pyrus malus var. domestica Suckow, Anfangsgr. Bot. 2: 332. 1786), [Angiosp.: Ros.], nom. cons. Typus: Herb. Linnaeus No. 647.3 (LINN) (typ. cons.). (=) Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill., Gard. Dict., ed. 8: Malus No. 1. 16 Apr 1768 (Pyrus malus var. sylvestris L., Sp. Pl.: 479. 1 Mai 1753), nom. rej. prop. Neotypus (vide Langenfelds, Apple-trees: 186. 1991): Latvia, “Dist. Madonensis, prope villula Grasi”, Langenfelds 105 (RIG). The oldest validly published name for the orchard apple when referred to the genus Malus Mill. is M. pumila Mill. (1768; Rosaceae; Mabberley & al. in Telopea 9: 421–430. 2001), but the opinion of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants (NCVP), namely that a proposal (Qian & al. in Taxon 59: 650–652. 2010) to reject this name in favour of M. domestica (Suckow) Borkh. (1803) be itself rejected, was reversed when the General Committee (by a very narrow majority) referred the proposal back to the NCVP, which, on a second vote, narrowly recommended the proposal be accepted after all. In consequence M. domestica is now conserved against M. pumila besides six other older names, some of which were added by the NCVP and the General Committee upon approval of the proposal's authors (Wilson in Taxon 66: 742. 2017). Published and unpublished molecular work (see Juniper & Mabberley, Extraord. Story Apple: 11. 2019; Sun & al. in Nat. Genet. 52: 1423–1432. 2020; Volk & al. in Frontiers Pl. Sci. (Online journal) 13: 1015658. 2022, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1015658) has shown that populations of the putative principal ancestor of the orchard apple, namely Malus sieversii (Ledeb.) M. Roem. of Central Asia, also include what are in fact hybrids with cultivars of M. domestica, while in eastern Europe and the Caucasus hybrids between M. domestica and the native M. sylvestris subsp. orientalis (Uglitzk.) Soó (M. orientalis Uglitzk.) are well known, and, in northern and western Europe, M. domestica hybridizes with the native M. sylvestris (L.) Mill. subsp. sylvestris far more readily than had previously been held. The inter-relationships of the three “wild” taxa have suggested that they may well represent eco-geographical races of a widespread ancestral Malus species (Juniper & Mabberley, l.c.: 28) and that these might therefore be better recognised at subspecies level (Mabberley in Juniper & Mabberley, l.c.: 244), as was in effect done long ago – by Soó (in Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung. 9: 423. 1963). Acceptance of such a taxonomic solution would currently lead to the “wild” taxa being recognised as subspecies under Malus sylvestris (as in Soó, l.c.), a 1768 name against which M. domestica has not been conserved, so that the correct name for the orchard apple in this scenario would appear to be “M. sylvestris subsp. malus (L.) ined.” ≡ Pyrus malus L. subsp. malus, of Ehrhart in Hannover. Mag. 18: 223. 1780. To protect the lately conserved M. domestica in any such system to be proposed when the most recent molecular work is presented, M. sylvestris must now be added to the list of names to be rejected in favour of M. domestica. DJM, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6082-5894 The author is, as ever, indebted to John Wiersema for advice in preparing this proposal.

(227) Proposal to permit a binding decision on whether or not an indirect reference to a basionym or replaced synonym is sufficient for valid publication of a name

Recently, a proposal was published to amend the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) to permit a binding decision on valid publication under Art. 38.4 when it is doubtful whether an illustration with analysis is acceptable in place of a description or diagnosis (Prop. 076, Pastore & al. in Taxon 70: 456. 2021). Now we have a similar proposal to permit a binding decision on whether or not an indirect or cryptic reference to a basionym or replaced synonym is sufficient for valid publication. The Code has a number of provisions where an indirect reference to a previous publication can affect the valid publication of a name, e.g. Art. 38.12, 38.13, 40.3, 41.3 and 43.2. According to Art. 41.3: “Before 1 January 1953 an indirect reference (see Art. 38.14) to a basionym or replaced synonym is sufficient for valid publication of a new combination, name at new rank, or replacement name.” In some situations, the form in which such a reference appears creates doubt as to whether it fulfils the requirement of Art. 41.3. This situation has no simple solution, and its subjectivity could lead to a name being considered validly published or not depending on the interpretation of the original publication. The case of Polygala pubescens Muhl. was comprehensively described by Pastore & Mota (in Phytotaxa 383: 125–127. 2018), where the authors argued that P. pubescens Muhl. was a replacement name for P. senega var. rosea Michx., because the name at new rank based on Michaux's name was preoccupied by P. rosea Desf. at the time. However, this interpretation has not been widely accepted. The alternative interpretation, that “rosea” was treated by Muhlenberg (Cat. Pl. Amer. Sept.: 63. 1813) as a variety of P. pubescens, a binomial that did not exist at that time, renders P. pubescens var. rosea (Michx.) Muhl. as not validly published. As regards “Polygala pubescens Muhl.”, IPNI (https://www.ipni.org/ accessed 5 Feb 2023) provides the following remarks: “Muhlenberg published Polygala pubescens rosea Mx and thus indirectly referred to P. senega var. rosea Michx. Since P. pubescens remained invalid in 1813, var. rosea Muhl. was also invalidly published.” This situation creates instability for some related names because P. pubescens Mart. (in Denkschr. Königl. Bot. Ges. Regensburg. 1(1): 185. 1815), a heterotypic synonym, is either an illegitimate later homonym or a correct name, and P. pubescens Nutt. (Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 2: 87. 1818) is either a later isonym or a later homonym. Furthermore, there is no provision in the Code to resolve the issue as to whether or not something is a new combination, name at new rank or replacement name, and so a stalemate is reached. Therefore, we present a proposal to modify Art. 41 in order to permit, when it is unclear if a cryptic “indirect reference” satisfies Art. 41.3, the submission of a request for a binding decision to the General Committee. “41.n. When it is doubtful whether an author has satisfied the requirement of Art. 41.3 for an “indirect reference” to a basionym or replaced synonym, a request for a decision may be submitted to the General Committee, which will refer it for examination to the specialist committee for the appropriate taxonomic group (see Div. III Prov. 2.2, 7.9, and 7.10). A Committee recommendation as to whether or not the name concerned is validly published may then be put forward to an International Botanical Congress and, if ratified, will become a binding decision with retroactive effect. These binding decisions are listed in App. VI.” MM acknowledges financial support from the CAPES via a doctoral degree scholarship grant (688085/2022-00). JFBP and JP acknowledge financial support by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (grants 302972/2020-0 and 307931/2021-8, respectively).