IAPT - International Association for Plant Taxonomy

TAXON - Data

TAXON - Home | Subscription | Contents | Index

This article is being published in Taxon 48: 771-784. 1999.

XVI International Botanical Congress: preliminary mail vote and report of Congress action on nomenclature proposals

Fred R. Barrie¹ & Werner Greuter²

¹ Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO 63166, U.S.A.; mailing address: Botany Department, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL 60605-2496, U.S.A.
² Botanischer Garten & Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Freie Universität, Königin-Luise-Str. 6-8, D-14195 Berlin, Germany.

Preliminary mail vote

A preliminary guiding mail vote on nomenclature proposals is required by Provision 4(a) of Division III (Provisions for modification of the Code) of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. A "Synopsis of proposals" was published in Taxon 48: 69-128. 1999. In February 1999, ballot forms were mailed from Berlin to all individual members of IAPT and to other persons who were either members of a permanent committee or authors of proposals. The published deadline for submission of ballots, 31 May 1999, was waived following the unexpected institutional decision to change the fax number, on extremely short notice, ten days before the deadline. All ballots received by 20 June, by mail or fax, were included in the vote count.

A total of 215 proposals have been made to amend the Code at the St Louis Congress, which is the third lowest number of any post-War Congress (the Sydney Congress in 1981 dealt with 213 proposals, the 1975 Leningrad Congress with a mere 161; see data on previous Congresses in Taxon 42: 907. 1993). Three proposals were split by the Rapporteurs for voting purposes, giving a total of 218. Of these, 138 were single-authored, 42 had two or more authors, and 38 came from Special Committees.

Out of 1161 mailed, 229 valid ballots (20 %) were returned (as compared to 202 in 1993, 160 in 1987 and 187 in 1981). One ballot was returned unsigned and consequently disregarded. For the first time, voters could fax their votes, and 66 did so. They might have been more numerous but for the last-minute fax number change. Even so, 15 ballots were sent to the new number, which had been widely publicised on the Internet.

The ballots sorted geographically as follows: North America 102 (45 %), Europe 95 (41 %), Central and South America 12 (5 %), Australia 11 (5 %), Asia 7 (3 %) and Africa 2 (1 %). Countries from which 10 or more ballots were returned include the United States (99; a 50 % increase over 1993), the United Kingdom (32), Germany (18), the Netherlands (10), and Australia (10). 146 ballots (64 %) came from predominately anglophone countries, 34 more that in 1993; the response from other parts of the world remained virtually stable (83 in 1999, 84 in 1993).

A geographical analysis of the voting revealed some interesting patterns. For 115 of the 218 ballot proposals, there was a significant difference (c ² : p > 0.005) in the voting pattern for ballots from Europe compared with those from North America (here limited to the United States and Canada; results from Mexico and Central America were pooled with those from elsewhere in Latin America). As was the case in mail vote prior to the Tokyo Congress (McNeill, Taxon 42: 907-924. 1993) overall there was a tendency for North American ballots to have more "no" votes: 55.4 %, as against 40.6 % from Europe and Latin America, 38 % from Australia and 25 % from Asia. The percentages in each category are as follows.

Some portion of the difference may be explained by the nearly absolute refusal of North American voters to abstain on any issue, perhaps indicative of the common North American perception that an abstention is the equivalent of a "no" vote. Whatever the reason, the average number of abstentions on a North American ballot was 3, as compared with 19, 20, 29 or 55 on a Latin American, Australian, European or Asian ballot, respectively.

For many of the proposals where results departed significantly from the expected, North American voters did cast a greater number of "no" votes than their European counterparts, but the two groups tended to favour or oppose most of the same issues and the difference was mostly a matter of degree. However, 17 proposals receiving a favourable majority from European voters were opposed on a majority of North American ballots. The opposite was true of only one, Art. 46 Prop. D. The most extreme example, Art. 56 Prop. A, advocating the restriction of certain species names applied traditionally to species aggregates to their use in the broad sense, was favoured by 70 % of European voters and opposed by nearly as great a percentage, 67 %, of North American voters. On this issue the Australian vote matched the European, while the Latin American and Asian votes were divided equally. In general, European, Australian and Latin American voting patterns tended to be similar. For the Latin America there were, however, two significant exceptions: registration (Art. 32 Prop. A) received no favourable votes from that region, while Art. 30 Prop. D, addressing the effective publication of theses, received two. Registration, perhaps not unexpectedly, was also opposed strongly in North America, less so in Europe and Australia. The Asian vote, however, was strongly supportive, with 6 favourable votes out of 8 cast. Europe and North America came down on opposite sides on the effective publication issue, the result reflecting, perhaps, the different traditions regarding the status of theses and dissertations. The results for Art. 15 Prop. A, Names in Current Use, mirrored those for registration, except that the level of support from Latin America approached that of Europe, while the opposition in Asia was nearly as strong as in North America. On the general issue of harmonisation, the introduction of new terminology (Gen Prop. B-L) and the establishment of a Permanent Committee on Harmonisation (Div. III Prop. A) were more strongly opposed in North America. However, the voting patterns were not significantly different for the proposals addressing the names of interregnal organisms and synonyms or confusingly similar names published under other codes (e.g., Rec. 16A Prop. A., Art. 17 Prop. A, Art. 54 Prop. A, Rec. 54A Prop. A). The long-standing North American opposition to liberalising the rules for conserving names appears to remain, with six of the seven proposals to amend Art. 14 opposed most strongly on North American ballots. Art. 14 Prop. D, which would have permitted conservation of any name regardless of rank, was favoured by a slight majority of European voters (52 %) but overwhelmingly rejected in North America (93 %). This was one of the few issues where the Australian votes (80 % no) tended to align with the North American votes, in opposition to the European position.

For 45 of the proposals with a significant difference in voting preference, that difference concerns the willingness to refer the matter to either the Editorial Committee or a Special Committee. Of particular note were the ballots cast by a third of European voters (and, likewise, Latin American and Australian voters) to refer the 38 proposals addressing Art. 60 (Prop. A-LL) to a new Special Committee on Orthography, presumably mindful of the Rapporteurs’ recommendation that the committee’s mandate should be to investigate the option of standardised spelling.

The table at the end reports the result of the preliminary mail vote for each proposal, followed by the percentage of "no" votes (discounting abstentions). In addition to the tabulated vote, 9 voters requested that Art. 14 Prop. G be referred to the General Committee. When the "no" vote was 75 % or more, it appears in bold-face type, as previous Congresses had decided that all such proposals would be ruled as rejected without discussion unless reintroduced from the floor. There were 33 such heavily defeated proposals, of which 15 had a negative vote of 90 % or more. Interestingly, all of the latter were single-authored, and no less than 11 were from one of the two same authors.

Two proposals concerning App. I were inadvertently left off the printed ballot. Fortunately, many voters spotted the error, and 144 of them added these entries by hand.

The number of abstentions (not tabulated separately) varies considerably between proposals and groups of proposals. Disregarding App. I Prop. A & B, which were left off the ballot and therefore had anomalous, high abstention counts, the average number of abstentions was 17.27, or 8 %. The 9 proposals with the highest abstention scores, 35-45 (15-21 %), all concerned fossil plants and fungal anamorphs (Art. 3 Prop. A, Art. 8 Prop. G-H, Art. 11 Prop. A-B & G, Art. 59 Prop. A-B, Art. 59bis Prop. A). There were 29 proposals with fewer than 10 abstentions, on which most voters expressed an opinion (General Prop. A-L, new Prin. Prop. A, Art. 7 Prop. A, Art. 29 Prop. A-C, Art. 32 Prop. A-H, Rec. 32G Prop. A, and Art. 36 Prop. A-C). They mostly concern the "hot" issues of harmonisation, registration, effective publication, and English vs. Latin validating descriptions. The three latter proposals, with but 2-5 abstentions, also received the highest number of "no" votes: 217, 213, and 215, respectively. Indeed, only 4 out of the 29 "hot" proposals received a positive mail vote: General Prop. A & I-J, and Art. 29 Prop. B.

Actions by the Nomenclature Section and the International Botanical Congress

The sessions of the Nomenclature Section of the XVI International Botanical Congress took place from Monday, 26 July, to Friday, 30 July 1999 in the lecture theatre of the Ridgeway Center at the Missouri Botanical Garden in St Louis. With 297 registered members in attendance, carrying 494 institutional votes in addition to their personal votes, this was likely the largest botanical nomenclature meeting ever.

The Officers of the Section, nominated in conformity with Division III of the Code, were H.-M. Burdet (Switzerland, President), W. Greuter (Germany, Rapporteur-général), D. L. Hawksworth (U.K., Vice-rapporteur), and F. R. Barrie (U.S.A., Recorder). The Bureau of Nomenclature further included 5 co-opted Vice-Presidents: R. K. Brummitt (U.K.), T. V. Egorova (Russia), K. Iwatsuki (Japan), R. P. Korf (U.S.A.), and J. McNeill (U.K.).

The Nominating Committee, appointed by the President upon advice from the Bureau of Nomenclature, consisted of nine members: D. H. Nicolson (Chair), W. G. Chaloner (U.K.), P. Davila (Mexico), G. Davidse (U.S.A.), K. Faegri (Norway), W. Gams (Netherlands), Peng Ching-i (China), G. F. Smith (South Africa), and J. West (Australia).

The Section approved the Tokyo Code as published as the basis of its deliberations. For the revised Code to arise from the St Louis Congress, the Editorial Committee was given the usual power to alter wording, examples, or location of Articles and Recommendations in so far as the meaning was not affected, but was requested to retain the present numbering in so far as possible. The Section also adopted the by now traditional procedure of requiring a 60 % majority of the votes cast for any proposal to amend the Code to be accepted, and of considering as rejected all proposals that had received 75 % or more "no" votes in the preliminary mail ballot. Any amendment motion made from the floor, including re-introduction of such rejected proposals, was to be considered if, and only if, it was seconded by at least five Section members.

The proposals were considered and acted upon in the sequence in which they appear in the published "Synopsis" (Greuter & Hawksworth in Taxon 48: 69-128. 1999), except in cases in which action was postponed to allow further deliberations among the proposers or the specialists concerned (as was the case, in particular, of proposals concerning fossil plants and hybrids). The full proceedings, based on the taped records of the debates, will, as for the last three Congresses, be published as a volume of Englera, to be offered to all Section members thanks to a contribution from the International Association for Plant Taxonomy.

The Section’s decisions are tabulated at the end, together with the results of the mail ballot. These decisions were quite conservative. The accepted proposals were 68 in number (31 %), of which 15 (7 % of the total) had been more or less substantially amended; moreover, 11 proposals (5 %) were referred to the Editorial Committee. On the negative side, 106 proposals (49 %) were rejected, including the 33 (15 %) ruled as rejected, and 33 (15 %) withdrawn (23 or 10.5 % to be further considered by apposite special committees). Some of the withdrawn proposals were successfully replaced by new ones introduced from the floor (see endnotes 3 and 8), and a number of entirely new motions from the floor were equally successful (endnotes 11, 14-16, 22, 25, and 27).

Overall, the Section followed faithfully the mail vote’s advice. In only 3 cases did it approve proposals that had received more than 40 % "no" votes in the mail ballot: they were Art. 33 Prop. A, Div. III Prop. A (substantially amended), and App. I Prop. B (found to be merely editorial). In 6 cases did the Section reject proposals that had received more "yes" than "no" votes: Art. 9 Prop. D (on which the Rapporteurs’ comments had been misleadingly positive), Art. 23 Prop. A (narrowly defeated on a card vote), Art. 56 Prop. A (on which the mail vote was almost in balance), Art. 60 Prop. I and R (drowned in the tidal wave opposing changes of the orthography rules), and Rec. 60C Prop. C.

Some will be disappointed at the Section’s refusal to consider innovative steps such as introducing the option to protect vetted lists of names (the "NCU proposals"), or accepting mandatory registration of future new names. They will find it hard to understand that no serious discussion of these important issues was allowed, and that the registration option introduced six years before by the Tokyo Congress was rescinded upon a motion from the floor, following a short, partly emotional, soon truncated debate. But then, the "atmospheric" conditions that prevailed during the Section meetings at St Louis were in many ways unprecedented in the history of botanical nomenclature and may not be fully appreciated and understood by those who were not in attendance. The proceedings of the Section meetings, to be published soon, will provide useful background information. Meanwhile, R. H. Petersen’s electronic report (http://fp.bio.utk.edu/mycology/nom-news.htm) may be of interest.

Most of the decisions taken by the Section were clear cut, and a show of hand was usually conclusive. In a few cases a show of cards was deemed necessary, and 9 formal card votes were asked for (on Art. 9 Prop. D, Art. 14 Prop. D, Art. 23 Prop. A, Art. 30 Prop. D, Art. 49 Prop. A, Art. 56 Prop. A, and on motions from the floor by Turland, Gandhi, and Stuessy). Three proposals failed by a very narrow margin: Art. 23 Prop. A achieved 59.25 % approval, Art. 49 Prop. A, 59.1 %, and Art. 56 Prop. A, 58.7 %. The closest issue, however, concerned alternative options under the Gandhi motion (endnote 22), where a 50 % majority was decisive and the eventually preferred option made it by a mere 50.3 % score!

At its final session on Friday morning, the Section approved the six-year reports of the General Committee (see Taxon 48: 821-822. 1999) and other Permanent Nomenclature Committees (to be published in the full "Nomenclature proceedings"). It also approved the Nomination Committee’s slate of candidates for Rapporteur-général and committee membership for the period 1999-2005, as follows:

Rapporteur-général. – J. McNeill (U.K.).

General Committee. – Officers: E. G. Voss (U.S.A., Chair), B. G. Briggs (Australia, Vice-Chair), D. H. Nicolson (U.S.A., Secretary). – Ex-officio members: G. T. Prance (U.K., IAPT President), T. F. Stuessy (Austria, IAPT Secretary), J. McNeill (U.K., Rapporteur-général), P. Compère (Belgium, Algae), G. Zijlstra, (Netherlands, Bryophyta), D. L. Hawksworth (U.K., Editorial Committee), J. E. Skog (U.S.A., Fossil Plants), W. Gams (Netherlands, Fungi), B. Zimmer (Germany, Pteridophyta), R. K. Brummitt (U. K., Spermatophyta). – Members at large: F. R. Barrie (U.S.A.), S. Blackmore (U.K.), W. R. Buck (U.S.A.), H.-M. Burdet (Switzerland), W. G. Chaloner (U.K.), W. Greuter (Germany), K. Iwatsuki (Japan), H. W. Lack (Germany), G. L. Menitsky (Russia), A. E. Orchard (Australia), G. F. Smith (S. Africa), F. O. Zuloaga (Argentina).

Committee for Spermatophyta. – I. Friis (Denmark, Chair), R. K. Brummitt (U.K., Secretary), W. R. Anderson (U.S.A.), G. Davidse (U.S.A.), T. V. Egorova (Russia), T. S. Filgueiras (Brazil), K. N. Gandhi (U.S.A.), C. E. Jarvis (U.K.), H. W. Lack (Germany), H. Ohashi (Japan), A. E. Orchard (Australia), G. Perry (Australia), M. Thulin (Sweden), P. Vorster (S. Africa), R. L. Wilbur (U.S.A.).

Committee for Pteridophyta. – R. E. G. Pichi Sermolli (Italy, Chair), B. Zimmer (Germany, Secretary), R. J. Chinnock (Australia), R. Johns (U.K.), B. Øllgaard (Denmark), M. Palacios (Mexico), B. S. Parris (New Zealand), C. Sánchez (Cuba), A. R. Smith (U.S.A.), Zhang Xian-chun (PRC).

Committee for Bryophyta. – R. Grolle (Germany, Chair), G. Zjilstra (Netherlands, Secretary), P. Geissler (Switzerland), J. Heinrichs (Germany), P. Isoviita (Finland), R. E. Magill (U.S.A.), S. M. Perold (S. Africa), R. D. Seppelt (Australia), R. E. Stotler (U.S.A.), B. C. Tan (Singapore), J. Vána (Czech Republic), D. H. Vitt (Canada).

Committee for Algae. – P. C. Silva (U.S.A., Chair), P. Compère (Belgium, Secretary), J. Bolton (S. Africa), G. Furnari (Italy), L. Hoffmann (Belgium), H. Lange-Bertalot (Germany), J. Larsen (Denmark), M. Masuda (Japan), E. C. de Oliveira (Brazil), D. J. Patterson (Australia), F. F. Pedroche (Mexico), A. K. S. K. Prasad (U.S.A.), W. F. Prud’homme van Reine (Netherlands), K. L. Vinogradova (Russia), W. J. Woelkerling (Australia).

Committee for Fungi. – V. Demoulin (Belgium, Chair), W. Gams (Netherlands, Secretary), L. Crane (U.S.A.), P. M. Jørgensen (Norway), P. M. Kirk (U.K.), P. Lizon (Slovakia), P. L. Nimis (Italy), L. Norvell (U.S.A.), E. Parmasto (Estonia), G. Redeuilh (France), S. Ryman (Sweden), G. J. Samuels (U.S.A.), H. Sipman (Germany), T. Schumacher (Norway), Zhuang Wen-ying (China).

Committee for Fossil Plants. – R. A. Fensome (Canada, Chair), J. E. Skog (U.S.A., Secretary), H. Anderson (S. Africa), S. Archangelski (Argentina), D. J. Batten (U.K.), M. Fairon-Demaret (Belgium), E. M. Friis (Sweden), C. Hartkopf-Fröder (Germany), R. S. Hill (Australia), J. Jansonius (Canada), D. J. Nichols (U.S.A.), E. Romero (Argentina), A. Traverse (U.S.A.), B. S. Venkatachala (India), Zhou Zhi-yan (China).

Editorial Committee. – W. Greuter (Germany, Chair), J. McNeill (U.K, Vice-Chair), D. L. Hawksworth (U.K., Secretary), F. R. Barrie (U.S.A.), H.-M. Burdet (Switzerland), V. Demoulin (Belgium), T. S. Filgueiras (Brazil), D. H. Nicolson (U.S.A.), P. C. Silva (U.S.A.), J. E. Skog (U.S.A.), P. Trehane (U.K.), N. J. Turland (U.S.A.).

The XVI International Botanical Congress ratified the above nominations, as well as the Section’s decisions tabulated below, by unanimously adopting the following resolution at its Closing Session:

" The XVI International Botanical Congress resolves that the decisions of its Nomenclature Section with regard to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature as well as the appointment of officers and members of the nomenclature committees, made by that Section during its meetings, July 26-30, be accepted."

^{1 The Section authorised the set-up of 7 special committees by the General Committee, to report to the XVII International Botanical Congress. They are: (1) Special Committee on Electronic Publishing (as per General Prop. A); (2) Special Committee on Early [pre-Cambridge-Congress] generic typifications; (3) Special Committee on Suprageneric Names; (4) Special Committee on Effective Publication [to consider theses in particular]; (5) Special Intercode Committee ICBN/ICNCP [to co-ordinate and harmonise the provisions on the nomenclature of hybrids]; (6) Special Liaison Committee with other Nomenclatural Codes; and (7) Special Committee to review Division III of the Code [particularly the voting procedures].}

² The terms "homotypic synonym", "heterotypic synonym", and "replacement name" to be added parenthetically after the current terms, "nomenclatural synonym", "taxonomic synonym", and "avowed substitute", respectively.

³ Replaced by the following compromise proposal to add one paragraph and a Note to Art. 3, moved by Skog on behalf of an ad hoc group of palaeobotanists in attendance and accepted by the Section:
"3.4. As in the case of certain pleomorphic fungi, the provisions of this Code authorise the publication and use of names of morphotaxa.
"Note 1. For the purpose of this Code, a morphotaxon is defined as a fossil taxon based on a particular form or structure, life history stage, or preservational state."

⁴ Amended by adding the phrase ", disregarding admixtures" at the end of the second sentence.

⁵ Amended by the proposers to become a Note after Art. 8.2, the present example to remain as a "non-voted" example: "Note. For fungi and algae, cultures, if preserved in a metabolically inactive state (e.g. lyophilisation or deep-freezing), are acceptable as types."

⁶ Deletion of the phrase ", or if such a name is without a type specimen," [concerning subsequent type designations] was accepted; deletion of the remaining provision [concerning the types of names of new taxa] was rejected.

⁷ Amended to incorporate the phrase "a single gathering but" ahead of "more than one specimen", as had been suggested by the Rapporteurs (in Taxon 48: 82. 1999).

⁸ Replaced by the following compromise proposal to add a sentence at the end of Art. 11.1, plus a subsequent new paragraph (also offering two exampled, not reproduced here, to the Ed.C.), moved by Skog on behalf of an ad hoc group of palaeobotanists in attendance and accepted by the Section:
"However, the use of separate names for the form-taxa of fungi and for morphotaxa of fossil plants is allowed under Art. 3.4 and 59.5.
"11.1bis. Fossil taxa may be treated as morphotaxa which for nomenclatural purposes comprise only those parts, life-history stages or preservational states represented by the corresponding nomenclatural types. Names for morphotaxa, for purposes of priority, compete only with names based on a fossil type representing that same part, life history stage, or preservation state."

⁹ Amended in the frame of a compromise proposal, to substitute "diatoms" or "Bacillariophyceae" for "algae" in Art.11.7, moved by Skog on behalf of an ad hoc group of palaeobotanists in attendance, supported by the Committee for Algae, and accepted by the Section.

¹⁰ Subject to editorial changes along the lines suggested by the Rapporteurs (in Taxon 48: 86. 1999).

¹¹ Moreover, a motion from the floor, by Reveal, was approved, to delete the present footnote to Art. 14 Note 1 and instruct the Ed.C. to update and correct App. IIB, and any relevant Example, accordingly.

¹² Amended by deletion of the parenthesis ("typeless names") in clause (b).

¹³ To be implemented in conformity with the Rapporteurs’ suggestion (in Taxon 48: 92. 1999).

¹⁴ Moreover, a motion from the floor, by Greuter, was accepted, to split both Art. 21.1 and 24.1 into two sentences by placing a period after "epithet" and continuing: "A connecting term [...] is used to denote the rank."

¹⁵ Moreover, upon motions from the floor, by Gams, the two following recommendations were approved:
"30B.1. Authors are encouraged to publish new names and new combinations in periodicals that regularly publish taxonomic articles, or to send a copy of their work to the appropriate indexing centre(s).
"30C.1. Authors and editors are encouraged to list nomenclatural novelties in the summary, abstract or table of contents of the publication."

¹⁶ A motion from the floor, by Turland, was carried, to remove all registration provisions introduced by the XV International Botanical Congress into the Code, to name, Art. 32.1, last sentence, 32.2, and 45.2.

¹⁷ Subject to editorial rewording.

¹⁸ The last two sentences of the proposed Example to be transformed into a Note defining the term "isonym".

¹⁹ Replaced by the following new provision, accepted upon a motion by Reveal from the floor [to be followed by three examples, two as originally proposed, one additional]: "35.2bis. For suprageneric names published on or after 1 January 1908, the use of one of the terminations specified by Art. 17-19 and Rec. 16A is accepted as an indication of the corresponding rank, unless this (a) would conflict with the explicitly designated rank of the taxon (which takes precedence) or (b) would result in a rank sequence contrary to Art. 5 (in which case Art. 33.5 applies)."

²⁰ The proposed new provision to become a Note, it being understood that the term "authorship" when first used concerns the publication but the second time, the included new names.

²¹ The Ed.C. to make it clear that cases of doubtful confusability can (as for generic and specific names) be referred to the General Committee with a request for a binding decision.

²² Upon a motion from the floor by Gandhi, the Section decided, by a narrow vote of preference, to add a clarification to Art. 53.6, perhaps by means of an explanatory Note, to the effect that "The renamed homonym remains legitimate and has priority over the nomen novum at the same rank if a transfer to another genus is made."

²³ On the understanding that the new text will become a Recommendation (as which it is worded), not a rule (as originally proposed).

²⁴ Rather than being deleted, the Recommendation will be editorially improved, following the Rapporteurs’ suggestion (in Taxon 48: 127. 1999).

²⁵ Moreover, two motions from the floor were carried, to amend Art. 62.2: the first, by Nicolson, to add ­glochin to the feminine word elements listed under clause (b); the second, from the Committee for Algae, to add -phykos (-phycos, -phycus) to the masculine word elements listed as exceptions under clause (c).

²⁶ Not, as proposed, a new Permanent Committee to be listed in Div. III.2 was approved, but a Special Committee (6), to be set up by the General Committee and to report to the XVII International Botanical Congress.

²⁷ Upon a motion from the floor, by Trehane, deletion of Art. H.3.3 & Note 2 was approved.

IAPT - Main menu | The Association | Taxon | Nomenclature | Regnum Vegetabile | Projects

© by International Association for Plant Taxonomy. WWW-Editor
Effective publication date: 13 November 1998