Synopsis of Proposals on Botanical Nomenclature ­ Vienna 2005. A review of the proposals concerning the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature submitted to the XVII International Botanical Congress

Taxon ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 215-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
John McNeill ◽  
Nicholas Turland
Keyword(s):  
Botanical Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
International Botanical ◽  
International Botanical Congress

The handling of the proposal to conserve the name Acacia at the 17th International Botanical Congress—an attempt at minority rule

Bothalia ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Majority Vote ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Botanical Nomenclature ◽  
Simple Majority ◽  
International Code ◽  
International Botanical ◽  
International Botanical Congress ◽  
Simple Majority Vote ◽  
Parliamentary Procedure ◽  
The Right

The handling of controversial Proposal 1584 to conserve the name Acacia with a conserved type for the Australian acacias during the Nomenclature Section meeting at the 17th International Botanical Congress (Vienna) in 2005 is reviewed. Through a simple majority vote, this Section adopted rules requiring a 60% majority of votes to approve any proposal to modify the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and a simple majority to approve all other motions; motions not receiving the required majority were to be rejected. However, for the motion addressing Proposal 1584, 45.1% voted to conserve the type of the name Acacia for Australian acacias, and 54.9% voted to retain the current African type for the name Acacia. Even though this motion failed to get a 60% majority either way as required by the Section’s own rules, Section officials have concluded that the name Acacia is to be conserved for Australian acacias. Treating a motion as approved, even though it received only minority support, also violates the fundamental principle of standard parliamentary procedure—the right of the majority to approve proposals. For Acacia to be formally conserved, the Nomenclature Section needed to approve a motion addressing Proposal 1584 with a majority vote, and this never happened in Vienna. Recommendations are made on how this process might be improved.

National Identity and International Science: The Case of Acacia

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Libby Robin ◽  
Jane Carruthers
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Type A ◽  
Botanical Nomenclature ◽  
International Code ◽  
The Public ◽  
National Symbol ◽  
Public Media ◽  
International Botanical ◽  
International Botanical Congress ◽  
The World

The article considers the role that history and botanical politics played during the nomenclatural debates surrounding the decision taken at the XVII International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Vienna in 2005 to conserve the genus Acacia with the type A. penninervis, an acacia from the Australian group, and the confirmation of this decision at the XVIII IBC in Melbourne in 2011. What was unusual about this issue was that it was contested in the public media as well as in professional botanical circles. It also resulted in fierce critiques about how the processes of international botany should operate. Many natural scientists strongly believe that their disciplines are objective and untainted by influences outside ?science', yet this recent example from international botany shows how politics in science, and scientific politics, may cast a long shadow over scientific decisions. In terms of external influences on science, we provide an overview of the competitive claims to Acacia as a national symbol in Australia and Africa that fuelled some of the discussion. We present some of the ?compromise proposals' that were circulated in advance of the Melbourne meeting and describe that meeting, focusing on the implications of the Acacia decision for the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. We reflect on the complex role played by national identity and emotional passion for plants that has been revealed, while also highlighting how this experience has encouraged many botanists around the world to scrutinize more carefully how their international bodies function and to suggest changes and improvements.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document