T A N E 21, 1975

THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE:

AN HISTORICAL REVIEW AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
by P.G. Parkinson*
SUMMARY
The origin and development of the Internationa] Code of Botanical
Nomenclature are reviewed. A bibliography of official Codes, and associated
documents, together with criticism of and comment on them is presented.
INTRODUCTION
This review of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature
(hereinafter "the Code") traces its development from its early predecessors
through the first official codes (Paris 1867, Vienna 1905) to the present one
(Seattle 1969) with a look towards the future (Leningrad), with particular
reference to the role of criticism and commentary on the evolution of the text
of the code through its many editions.
Botanical nomenclature relies absolutely on the text of the Code, but this
text has had a long and involved history, being directed by the critics of the
Code, past and present, and their proposals on its modification. The modern
mechanism of the institutional reform of the Code is described and the critical
documents concerning the last published Code are listed, as are previous
"Synopses of Proposals" which contain bibliographies of criticism of earlier
codes. Another section lists the editions of the Code and their holdings in New
Zealand libraries. The review concludes with a bibliography listing the works
consulted and a selection of mainly early works which either criticise or
comment on the Code.
I. THE CODE AND ITS CRITICS:
AN HISTORICO-DESCRIPTIVE ESSAY
The use of binary Latin names for species of plants was instituted by the
"prince of botanists" Carl Linnaeus in his "Species Plantarum" of 1753. Before
the appearance of this great work the names of species had not been in binary
form but varied in form from unitary designations to long descriptive phrases.
Linnaeus's contribution to nomenclature was to give a standard form to such
names and this meant, often, that names in popular use in his time were
supplanted by the new binary names that Linnaeus coined. In his adoption and
coining of names Linnaeus was following the provisions of the "canons" set
down earlier in his 'Critica Botanica' (1737) and 'Philosophia Botanica' (1751).
These ideas had had their first expression in the 'Fundamenta Botanica' (1736)
as chapters VII (nomina), VIII (differentia), IX (variationes) and X (synonymia)
and these chapters were elaborated more deeply in the Critica. The treatment in
the Philosophia, still under the same chapter headings, is, however, more mature
and concise-.
Alexander Turnbull Library, P.O. Box 8016, Wellington.

153

Aphorisms 210-255 of the 'Philosophia' deal with nomina (Chapter

VII), mostly generic names; numbers 252-255 deal with the names of
orders and classes. The next Chapter (VIII) is entitled "differentia" and
comprises aphorisms 256-365 dealing with the specific names by phrase
names but also with specific characters. Aphorisms 306-317 (Chapter
IX) treat the varieties and 318-324 (Chapter X) the synonymy. These
four chapters constitute the Linnaean rules of botanical nomenclature
with some additional remarks on differentiating characters. (Stafleu
1971 p.80)
These rules served to guide Linnaeus in his own publications,
established standards of practice for his followers and led him to
discard on a grand scale the names used by his predecessors. As E.L.
Greene observed (1906) "Such expurgation of generic nomenclature as
was then made could never have been made through the mere will of
one individual reformer. Botanists in general must have been already
more or less disgusted with the abundance of cheap and easily made
names that were current." Many of these canons have long disregarded,
indeed adherence to nos. 225, 227, 229 would deprive botany of the
means by which many pleasing or useful names have been coined.
Nevertheless they ensured that botanical nomenclature at least began
with a series of well formed euphonious and convenient names. (Steam
1966)
Examples of the Linnaean canons are:
220 'No sane person introduces "primitives" as generic names. By
"primitives", as is well known, are meant words which have no root, no
derivation, no significance. What I press is that we should do nothing
irrational, wherefore, if we would not be considered utter barbarians,
let us not invent names which cannot be derived from some root or
other.'
221 'Generic names formed from two complete and distinct words are
to be banished from the commonwealth of botany.'
222 'Generic names compounded of two entire Latin words are
scarcely to be tolerated . . . Anyone can readily perceive for himself
that Latin words do not combine so easily as Greek.'
228 'Generic names with a similar sound give a handle to confusion.'
236 'Generic names should not be misused in order to perpetuate the
memory of Saints and men distinguished in some other branch of
learning or to secure their favour.'
249 'Generic names an ell long, or difficult to pronounce or
unpleasant are to be avoided.' (After Steam 1966 p.284-5, quoted from
Sir Arthur Hort's English translation published by the Ray Society.)
As can be seen from these samples they are concerned with the acceptability of
names as names rather than as names for things. In this respect they are very
different from the recent official Codes, according to which:
The name of a genus is a substantive in the singular number or a word
treated as such. It may be taken from any source whatever and may
154

even be composed in an entirely arbitrary manner (Article 20, Seattle

Code).
Unlike the Linnaean canons the modern Codes aim at:
. . . the provision of a stable system of naming taxonomic groups,
avoiding and rejecting the use of names system of naming taxonomic
groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names which may cause error
or ambiguity or throw science into confusion. Next in importance is the
avoidance of the useless creation of names. Other considerations such as
absolute grammatical correctness, regularity and euphony of names,
more or less prevailing custom, regard for persons etc., notwithstanding
their undeniable importance are relatively accessory . . . Botany
requires a precise and simple system of nomenclature used by botanists
in all countries dealing with the terms which are applied to the
individual groups of plants. The purpose of giving a name to a
taxonomic group is not to indicate its characters or history, but to
supply a means of referring to it and to indicate its taxonomic rank.
(Preamble to the Seattle Code.)
In the early 1800s when the Linnaean genera named in accordance with
the canons were being revised, the canons were found inadequate to determine
the correct names to select for the taxonomic groups. Commonsense and
Christian ethics provided some guidelines, for taxonomists and nomenclators,
among them the important "Priority principle", that when two names were
available for a group the earlier should be chosen; and the "homonym" principle
that one name might not denote two different things;md the sensible rule that
one thing might not be denoted by two different names. But it was soon seen
that this was simply not enough. Cheeseman (1908) says:
. . . although no one proposes to dispense with the binomial system, its
practical working has, through a variety of causes become exceedingly
difficult and troublesome. Instead of stability of nomenclature, which
is clearly the point to be aimed at, we have arrived at a chaotic state of
uncertainty which has a serious deterrent effect on the study of
systematic botany, even if it is not fast bringing it into contempt. The
reasons for this regrettable state of affairs may be briefly particularised
as follows:The botanical nomenclature of Linnaeus is now usually considered to
date from the first edition of his "Species Plantarum" in 1753. For
many years after this date no difficulties of importance arose, although
the absence of any code of rules or even of any well defined
understanding as to modes of procedure, encouraged a laxity of
practice sure to create trouble in the future.
Unfortunately the idea of the inviolability of the specific name, when
once conferred, now considered a point of the first importance, was of
slow growth, so that eminent botanists on the flimsiest of pretexts did
not hesitate to alter or even reject names given by their own
contemporaries. Then as time went on it became apparent that many of
the genera established by Linnaeus or other of the early systematists
required alterations in their characters. Some were much too extensive
1

155

in their scope and had to be divided into two or more; others were seen
to be too closely allied and had to be merged. All these changes
involved alterations in nomenclature. And as opinions of different
authors working on the same genera or groups of genera were naturally
and probably unavoidably diverse, and as these opinions were often
based upon totally different ideas as to the limitations of both genera
and species, it followed as a matter of course that the resultant
nomenclature was different. In the early days of botanical research too,
botanists were often imperfectly acquainted with each other's work, it
often happened that two authors, working unknown to each other
upon similar materials would independently propose new generic or
specific names for the same plants. And although there was a vague
understanding that the oldest name published was the valid one, it
often occured that the oldest name was not at first recognised, either
from being described in some obscure publication with a small and
purely local circulation, which consequently escaped notice of
botanists, or an account of the superior influence or position of one of
the workers. It would be easy to enumerate other cases leading to
disputed or uncertain nomenclature; but enough has been said to show
that, with the progress of systematic botany the nomenclature of the
science yearly became more involved and difficult of application.
Finally the need for a single universal set of rules became so evident
that an International Botanical Congress was called in an attempt to
sort out and get agreement on taxonomic procedure. The first congress,
called by the Swiss Botanist Alphonse de Candolle, met in 1867 in
Paris. The assembly adopted the first set of Internationa] Rules of
Botanical nomenclature and the "Paris Code" began to affect taxonomic procedures throughout the world. Unfortunately then as now,
differences of opinion or interpretation and a certain measure of
nationalist pride often overrode the needs of science and several
different approaches to nomenclature became operative in different
countries.
Some interpretations of the rules followed by the British botanists at
the world famous Kew Gardens, long a leading centre of taxonomic
activity were not acceptable to some of the botanists such as Dr N.L.
Britton, the first Director of the New York Botanical Garden.
Therefore in 1892, a number of American botanists met in Rochester
and proposed modifications of the Paris Code; but these modifications
later presented at the second International Botanical Congress (Vienna
1905) were not accepted. Furthermore the Rochester group did not
find acceptable some of the rules that were passed at this congress so
they revised their 1892 "Rochester Code" and published it in 1907 as
the "American Code". Dr Britton followed this code in his taxonomic
work, but Dr Asa Gray, another leading American botanist of this time,
subscribed to the International Rules of the "Vienna Code". Therefore the two major books of that period covering the flora of the
north-eastern United States followed different rules of nomenclature,
2

156

and a particular plant might appear under different names in each of

the two references. (Bell 196(5?))
Cheeseman continues:
De Candolle provided that the first published name should take
precedence of all those issued at later dates. Now this can be
interpreted in two ways. By one school of botanists it is taken to
mean that the specific name when once applied is absolutely unchangeable. The original author may have failed to put it under its proper
genus, either through ignorance or neglect, or through a desire to avoid
the multiplication of genera . . . or to put the matter in the forcible
manner of a well-known writer the "specific epithet once given is
indelible and whatever the taxonomic wanderings of the organism to
which it was once assigned, it must always accompany it." But by
another section of botanists it is held that the name entitled to priority
is that under which a plant was first placed in its correct genus, even if
the author had deliberately passed over some pre-existing specific name
under other but incorrect genera. At first sight this rule appears harsh
as it clearly refuses to recognise the work of the first describer of a
plant if he fails to place it in its proper genus; but, after all, it must be
borne in mind that the object of botanical nomenclature is, as Mr
Bentham long ago pointed out, "the ready identification of species,
genera or other groups for study or reference, not the glorification of
botanists. But the strongest argument in favour of adopting the
earliest combination in the accepted genus as the rightful name of any
plant is its simplicity and ease of application. It is comparatively easy to
determine the first name applied to a plant in its correct genus; but it is
often exceedingly difficult to ascertain the oldest name under any
genus whatever.
. . . it may not be without interest to quote the opinions of the
renowned American botanist Asa Gray on the subject: "to keep up the
name under which any plant is first placed in its true genus is simple,
thoroughly practicable and in my opinion most conducive to fixity of
names. It is reasonable enough under the stringent law of priority to
resuscitate neglected older specific names pertaining to their proper
genus; but surely it is unreasonable and inconsiderate to conclude any
such right to a specific name out of the genus to which they are
subordinate." (Gray 1887 p.355).
Cheeseman continues his paper with a most interesting discussion of the
general problem of priority. The present codes take 1753 as the starting point
for nomenclature with exceptions for a few groups (fungi, mosses, fossil plants
and a few small groups of algae), but in earlier times this arbitrary starting date
was not universally accepted, especially for generic names, many of which had
long been in use before Linnaeus adopted them, and some of which went back
to Pliny, Virgil, Theophrastes and Aristotle. Dr Otto Kuntze, the notorious
nomenclatural reformer, accepted 1735 as the arbitrary starting date and in
consequence of this and the law of priority renamed tens of thousands of species
in his three-volume 'Revisio. . .' (1891-98). The 'Revisio' sparked a heated
3

157

debate among botanists and almost universal condemnation. Eventually the

reaction to it forced through a resolution at the Vienna Congress according to
which "However to avoid disadvantageous changes in the nomenclature of
genera by the strict application of the rules of nomenclature and especially of
the principle of priority in starting from 1753, the rules provide a list of names
which must be retained in all cases. These names are by preference those which
have come into general use in the fifty years following their publication or which
have been used in monographs and important floristic works UP TO THE Y E A R
1890." This historic landmark, which seems to have prompted Kuntze's remark
about an "incompetent" congress, has only recently been removed from the
Code (see Stafleu 1970). Cheeseman dwells at length on Kuntze's coinages and
his account, too long to be included in this essay, is nonetheless well worth
reading.
In the years before the Vienna Congress and especially after the 'Revisio'
began appearing in 1891, the fight between the rival school of nomenclature
which had sprung up in France, England, America and Germany, was fierce and
bitter, including emotional denunciations of policies and accusations of the
supression of criticism in the U.S., where three important botanical journals
were all controlled by the Rochester group. The other side carried on its battle
in the pages of the Journal of Botany, British and Foreign.
In an account of the Vienna Congress (in Nature 20 July 1905) Rendle
says:
The work of the conference was to discuss the recommendations of the
commission on nomenclature appointed by the International Congress
of Paris in 1900. These were embodied in the "Texte Synoptique.." a
formidable quarto volume in which the rapporteur-general Dr Briquet
had collated the numerous emendations and modifications of the
original Code of De Candolle, which during the last five years have been
submitted by various societies, institutions, groups of botanists and
individuals. The numerous suggestions had been voted on seriatim by
the members of the commission and from the results of the voting
certain recommendations were drawn up by Dr Briquet for the
consideration of the members of the conference, about a hundred and
fifty of whom were present. The new American school was represented
by Dr Britton, Mr Corville and others while Dr Robinson of Harvard
represented the more moderate school which has worked on lines
similar to those adopted in England. The Berlin school was present in
force and most of the continental botanical societies and institutions
were represented. As the president Mr Flauhault remarked in answer to
Dr Otto Kuntze's protest against an "incompetent congress" it would
be difficult to bring together a body of botanists more competent to
discuss botanical nomenclature and, one may add, more seemingly
anxious to arrive at some solution of the various problems and some
agreement on the points at issue. . . The most important result was the
passing by an overwhelming majority of a list of generic names which,
from long established usage are to be retained, although on the
principle of priority they should be rejected. There was considerable
158

discussion on the question as to the trivial name to be adopted when a

plant is transferred from one genus to another, or from subspecific or
varietal to specific rank. English and a minority of American botanists
have followed the so-called "Kew Rule" of adopting the first correct
binomial while the majority of American and most contintal botanists,
in common with zoologists, adopt the earlier trivial name. On this point
a compromise was effected as follows:
When a change of systematic position without change of rank occurs,
such as the transference of a species from one genus to another, the
earliest specific epithet is to be used; when the rank changes (as in the
elevation of a variety to specific rank) the original epithet is not insisted
on. The conference was also strongly opposed to any change of name
once given, though for various reasons it might be considered
inappropriate or even misleading. A name is a name and must stand.
As already remarked, not all of these decisions were satisfactory to the
Americans who issued their own rival "American Code" in 1907. The problem
of the two codes was resolved at the Cambridge Congress, 1930. An anonymous
report of the Congress in Nature (Sept. 13, 1930 p.406-7), perhaps also by
Rendle notes:
An important duty of the Congress was to review the rules of botanical
nomenclature. The code of rules formulated at Vienna (1905) and
Brussels (1912) had been re-examined by an international committee
appointed for the purpose at the previous congress held in America in
1926. The function of this committee was to receive and report on
suggestions and resolutions submitted by botanists generally and the
results of its deliberation, in the form of a Synopsis prepared by the
Rapporteur-General, Dr John Briquet of Geneva, formed the basis of
discussions by the subsection on nomenclature. It was hoped that
certain differences in practice and more especially the fundamental
differences between the majority of workers on the one hand and a
school representing an important section of American botanists on the
other, might be amicably settled and that the 1930 Congress might
witness the achievement of a system to which workers generally would
be willing to conform. Pleasing features of the discussions were the
evident wish to arrive at a common ground and the absence of that
somewhat polemic atmosphere which was noticeable at Vienna in 1905.
Battle was joined afresh on the question of a compulsory Latin
diagnosis when describing a new genus or species. The original
alternative of the three best known European languages is no longer
tenable with the increasing spread of the study of taxonomy and the
only alternative to Latin is obviously the use of any language, a practice
which would add to the difficulties of taxonomic work. It was pointed
out that the embodiment in a short diagnosis of the salient points of a
genus or species would be helpful both to the author and other
workers. The vote on the question indicated an almost complete
disappearance of the opposition to Latin; an appeal by bacteriology and
paleobotany to be excepted owing to inherent difficulties was,
159

however, allowed. In order to legitimise names already published in a

vulgar toungue, the rule will not come into force until January 1932.
Another decision was the recognition of the standard species in fixing
the identity of genera.
The requirement for a Latin diagnosis was nonetheless ignored by a few
botanists after 1932, especially among phycologists, such as Fritsch and Kylin,
and since nobody wanted to reject all the names they proposed simply because
they were published without Latin diagnoses, the rule on Latin diagnoses for
algae applied only from 1958, by which time both were dead. The last sentence
of the quote refers to the principle of typification, arguably the most important
result of the Cambridge Congress. According to the principle each name at its
publication becomes permanently associated with an element of the taxon to
which the name is applied, and thenceforth the application of that name is
limited to groups which contain that element, termed the "nomenclatural type".
This principle, which has been of great help in clarifying the notion of
synonymy, was originally part of the 1892 Rochester Code though in a different
form and was one of the main causes of dissention in America as it was not
upheld by English and continental botanists of that period.
After Cambridge the Code has evolved more slowly and no major changes
have been introduced since Stockholm (1950); the Code entered a new phase of
development; slow institutional reform regulated by the I.A.P.T. and its kindred
bodies.
What I have termed "Institutional Reform" of the Code is the modern
system through which proposals on its reform are published, processed and
either adopted or rejected. This rather elaborate but necessary process requires
all proposals to be published in an official organ of the I.A.P.T. (International
Association of Plant Taxonomy) i.e. Taxon, its regular serial or Regnum
Vegetabile, an irregularly issued series of handbooks. These proposals are
collated together by the Rapporteur General and published in a special issue of
Regnum Vegetabile, the "Synopsis...". For example, before the Seattle
Congress all the propositions were published in Taxon, together with the
comments of their authors, except for proposals 254-284 which were first
published in the Synopsis itself.
According to Division III 'Provisions for modification of Code' in the
Seattle Code:
Provision 1. 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.
Provision 4. The voting on Nomenclature proposals is of two kinds:
1) a preliminary guiding mail vote and 2) a final and binding vote at the
Nomenclature section of the International Botanical Congress.
(1)
(2)
(3)

Those entitled to vote in the preliminary mail vote are:

The members of the International Association of Plant Taxonomy
The authors of proposals
The members of the nomenclature committees.
160

The final binding vote is taken by:

(1) A l l officially enrolled members of the section
(2) Official delegates or vice-delegates of the institutes appearing on a list
drawn up by the Bureau of Nomenclature of the International Botanical
Congress and submitted to the general Committee for final approval; such
institutes are entitled to 1-7 votes as specified in the list
After the Congress a report on the activities of the nomenclature section is
prepared and published in Regnum Vegetabile. This report contains the minutes
of the meetings and can be examined if one is interested to see what a particular
person thought of a particular proposal. The final binding votes are also
included. The last such report (on Seattle 1969) appeared in 1972, just before
the Seattle Code.
The first "Synopsis of Proposals" was that prepared by Briquet for the
Vienna Congress 1905 and is valuable for its bibliography of the criticisms which
resulted in definite proposals for the emendation of the Candollean "Lois" of
1867. Similar synopses have appeared for most of the later congresses (see list).
The number of proposals submitted in recent quinquennia has declined and
fewer are now finding acceptance. This indicates that the Code has become more
or less stable. Stafleu, the present Rapporteur-General has said (1970 p.36):
The trend since Montreal, to concentrate on details rather than on basic
changes is clear. The nomenclature section of the Congress finds itself
discussing refinements rather than major reforms. Our Code seems to
have found its shape. Some nomenclaturists still maintain that the order
and organisation are illogical, and that there is too much patchwork;
however most members of the section at Seattle seemed determined to
change as little as possible."
The following table indicates the fate of proposals made at recent congresses (after Stafleu (1970) but reorganised).
Table 1
Seattle
Edinburgh Montreal
1969
1964
1959
333
223
337
Total No. Proposals
13 (*30)
9
27
% Accepted
% Rejected
54(*120)
52
42
% Editorial Committee
24 (*55)
28
23
7(*14)
2
5
% Special Committee
% Otherwise disposed of
9
3
2(*4)
* (Number of proposals at Seattle)
Congress

Paris
1954
387
24
57
15
3
1

II. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BOTANICAL N O M E N C L A T U R E

CRITICAL DOCUMENTS OF THE SEATTLE CODE, A R R A N G E D
CHRONOLOGICALLY
(1) Synopsis of proposals on botanical nomenclature, Seattle 1969. A review of
the proposals concerning the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature
submitted to the 11th International Botanical Congress at Seattle 1969 by Frans

(A)

161

A. Stafleu, Rapporteur-General and Edward G. Voss (Vice-Rapporteur) Utrecht,

I.A.P.T., 1969 (Regnum Vegetabile 60)
(2) [Stafleu, F.A.] Preliminary vote on nomenclature proposals. Taxon 18:
473 476(1969).
(3) Moore, H.E., F.A. Stafleu & E.G.Voss. Final mail vote and congress action
on nomenclature proposals. Taxon 19 (1): 43-51 (1970).
(4) Stafleu, F.A. Nomenclature at Seattle. Taxon 19 (1): 36-42 (1970).
(5) Report on Botanical Nomenclature Seattle 1969. Eleventh International
Botanical Congress, Seattle 1969. Nomenclature section. Report presented by
Frans A . Stafleu (Rapporteur-General) & Edward G. Voss (Vice-Rapporteur).
Utrecht, I.A.P.T., 1972 (Regnum Vegetabile 81).
(B)

SYNOPSES OF PROPOSALS PRESENTED TO INTERNATIONAL

BOTANICAL CONGRESSES, A R R A N G E D CHRONOLOGICALLY

International Botanical Congress.. .

1st, Paris, 1900
(Synopsis not issued)
2nd, Vienna, 1905
Texte synoptique des documents destinees a servir de base aux debats du
congres international de nomenclature botanique de Vienne 1905,
presente au nom de la commission internationale de nomenclature
botanique par John Briquet, Rapporteur-General. Edite par le Bureau
permanent du Congres International de Botanique de Paris 1900 et par la
commission d'organisation du Congres Internationa] de Botanique a
Vienne, 1905. Berlin, Friedlander, 1905. (Available at WMu)
3rd, Brussels, 1910
(Synopsis not traced)
4th, Ithaca, 1926
(Synopsis not issued?)
5th, Cambridge, 1930
Recueil synoptique des documents destines a servir de base aux debats de
la sous-section de nomenclature de Vme Congres International de
Botanique, Cambridge (Angleterre), 1930, presente au nom du Bureau
Permanent et des Commissions de Nomenclature par John Briquet,
Rapporteur General. Edite par le Comite d'Organisation du Congres
International de Bruxelles, 1910 et par le Comite Executif du Congres de
Cambridge, 1930. Berlin, Friedlander, 1930. (Available at WMu)
6th, Amsterdam, 1935
(Synopsis not traced)
7th, Stockholm, 1950
Synopsis of proposals concerning the International Rules of Botanical
Nomenclature, submitted to the seventh International Botanical Congress,
Stockholm, 1950, prepared by J. Lanjouw, Acting Rapporteur-General.
"Published for the International Commission of Taxonomy of the I.U.B.S.
by A . Oosthoeks Uitg., Utrecht, Netherlands 1950. Agent the Chronica
Botanica Co. Waltham, Mass., U.S.A." xvi, 255p. (Available at: A R , LiAg,
6

162

AU:B,WMu)
8th, Paris, 1954
Recueil synoptique des propositions concernant le Code International de
la Nomenclature Botanique soumises a la section de nomenclature du
huitieme Congres International de Botanique, Paris 1954, presente par J.
Lanjouw, Rapporteur-General. Edite par le comite d'Organisation du
Congres International de Paris 1954 et par le Bureau International pour la
Taxonomie et la Nomenclature vegetale. Utrecht, I.A.P.T., 1954, 120p.
(Regnum Vegetabile 4) (Available at WMu, WU. . .)
9th, Montreal, 1959
Synopsis of proposals concerning the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature submitted to the ninth International Botanical Congress at
Montreal-1959, presented by J. Lanjouw, Rapporteur-General. Utrecht;
Edited by the Organising Committee of the ninth Int. Bot. Congress and
by the International Bureau for Plant Taxonomy & Nomenclature of the
International Association for Plant Taxonomy; Published with the
financial assistance of I.U.B.S.-UNESCO. (1959) 84p. (Available at: A R ,
WMu) (Regnum Vegetabile 14)
10th, Edinburgh, 1964
Synopsis of proposals concerning the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature submitted to the Tenth International Botanical Congress,
Edinburgh, 1964, presented by J. Lanjouw, Rapporteur-General and F.A.
Stafleu, Vice-Rapporteur. Utrecht; Edited by the Organising Committee of
the Tenth International Botanical Congress and by the International
Bureau for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature of the International
Association of Plant Taxonomy. Published with the financial assistance of
I.U.B.S.-UNESCO. (1964) (Regnum Vegetabile 30)
11th Seattle, 1969
Synopsis of proposals on botanical nomenclature, Seattle, 1969. A review
of the proposals concerning the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature submitted to the Eleventh International Botanical Congress at
Seattle, 1969 by Frans A . Stafleu, Rapporteur-General and Edward G.
Voss (Vice-Rapporteur). Utrecht (I.A.P.T.) 1964. 124p. (Regnum vegetabile 60). Available at: AU:B,WU,WMu)
12th, Leningrad, 1975
Synopsis of proposals in botanical nomenclature, Lenigrad, 1975.
(pp.201-202); International Code of Botanical Nomenclature: proposals.
(pp.203-237) Taxon 24(1): 201-237 (1975). [Available at A U : B , A R ,
LiPl, WU, WMu etc.]
(C)

REPORTS OF THE N O M E N C L A T U R E SECTIONS OF SOME RECENT

INTERNATIONAL BOTANICAL CONGRESSES, A R R A N G E D
CHRONOLOGICALLY

International Botanical Congress...

9th, Montreal, 1959
International Botanical Congress. Nomenclature Section. Report presented
163

by the Bureau of Nomenclature. Toronto, University of Toronto Press,

1960. 116p. (Regnum Vegetabile 20) Also issued in "Proceedings of the
IX International Botanical Congress, Montreal 1959. Distributed by the
International Association for Plant Taxonomy, Utrecht." (Available at:
WU, WMu)
10th, Edinburgh, 1964
International Botanical Congress. Nomenclature Section. Report presented
by F . A . Stafleu, on behalf of the Bureau of Nomenclature. Utrecht,
I.A.P.T., 1966. 75p. (Regnum Vegetabile 44) (Available at: WU,
WMu,AU:B)
11th, Seattle, 1969
Report on botanical nomenclature, Seattle, 1969. Eleventh International
Botanical Congress, Seattle 1969. Nomenclature Section. Report presented
by Frans A . Stafleu (Rapporteur-General) and Edward G. Voss (ViceRapporteur). Utrecht, I.A.P.T., 1972. (Regnum Vegetabile 81) 133p.
(Available: WU, WMu, AU:B)
(D)

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODES OF

BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE,
Indicating New Zealand holdings of the texts

International Botanical Congress. . .

0th, Paris, 1867
Lois de la nomenclature botanique adoptees par le Congres Internationale
de Botanique, tenu a Paris en aout 1867, suivies d'une deuxieme edition de
l'Introduction historique et du Commentaire qui accompagnaient la
redaction preparatoire presentee au Congres par M. Alphonse de Candolle.
Geneve, H . Georg, 1867. 64p. (Not held in New Zealand.)
1st, Paris, 1900
(No Code issued)
2nd, Vienna, 1905
Regies intemationales de la nomenclature botanique adoptees par le
Congres International de Botanique, de Vienne, 1905 et publies au nom de
la Commission de Redaction du Congres par John Briquet, RapporteurGeneral. Jena, G . Fischer, 1906. 99p. (Copy at WMu.)
3rd, Brussels, 1910
Ragles intemationales de la nomenclature botanique adoptees par le
Congres International de Botanique de Vienne 1905: deuxieme edition
mise au point d'apres les decisions du Congres International de Botanique
de Bruxelles, 1910. Publiee au nom de la Commission de Redaction du
Congres par John Briquet, Rapporteur-General. Jena, G. Fischer, 1912.
viii, 1 lOp. (Not held in New Zealand.)
4th, Ithaca, New York, 1926
(No Code issued)
5th, Cambridge, 1930
International rules of Botanical nomenclature adopted by the Inter164

national Botanical Congresses of Vienna, 1905, and Brussels, 1910, revised

by the International Botanical Congress of Cambridge, 1930, compiled by
the editorial committee of nomenclature, prepared by John Briquet. Jena,
G. Fischer, 1935. xii, 152p. (Copies at AR, DU, AU:B.)
6th, Amsterdam, 1935
International rules of botanical nomenclature formulated by the International Botanical Congresses of Vienna, 1905, Brussels, 1910, and
Cambridge 1930. Adopted and revised by the International Botanical
Congress of Amsterdam, 1935. Compiled from various sources by W.H.
Camp (and others). Unnofficial special edition, issued as a service to
members of the American Society of Plant Taxonomists. "Published by
the New York Botanical Garden in cooperation with the American Society
of Plant Taxonomists, the Science Press Printing Company, Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, 1947". 120p. (Copies at LiPl, WAg, WMu, WN, WFo, A U : B ,
RoFo, WGe.)
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. Supplement, embodying
the alterations made at the sixth International Botanical Congress, Amsterdam,
1935, compiled by T.A. Sprague. . .Rapporteur-General for Nomenclature, Sixth
International Botanical Congress. Waltham, Mass., Chronica Botanica Co., 1950.
in Chronica Botanica 12 (1/2) pp.65-68. (Copies at A U : B , WC1, WRW, L1P1,
WMu, DU, CU, and AR(?).)
7th, Stockholm, 1950
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the Seventh
International Botanical Congress, Stockholm, July, 1950, prepared by J.
Lanjouw (and others). Utrecht, "Published with financial support of
I.U.B.S. by the International Bureau for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy, the Chronica
Botanica Co.: Waltham, Mass., U.S.A." 1952. (Regnum Vegetabile 3)
228p. (Copies at API, C U , AR, WGe, LiPl, WMu.)
8th, Paris, 1954
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the Eighth
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. Supplement, embodying
the alterations made at the sixth International Botanical Congress,
Amsterdam, 1935, compiled by T.A. Sprague.. .Rapporteur-General for
Nomenclature, Sixth International Botanical Congress. Waltham, Mass.,
Chronica Botanica Co., 1950. in Chronica Botanica 12 (1/2) pp.65-68.
(Copies at A U : B , WN, WRW, L1P1, WMu, DU, CU, and AR(?).)
9th, Montreal, 1959.
International Code' of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the Ninth
International Botanical Congress, Montreal, August, 1959, prepared and
edited by J. Lanjouw (and others). Utrecht, "Published with financial
support of I.U.B.S.-UNESCO by the International Bureau for Plant
Taxonomy and Nomenclature of the International Association for Plant
Taxonomy", 1961. (Regnum Vegetabile 23) 372p. (Copies at WMu, AP,
API, WN, WU, A U : B , LiPl, LeAg, WF6, DU, WGe.)
10th, Edinburgh
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the Tenth
165

International Botanical Congress, Edinburgh, August 1964, prepared and

edited by J. Lanjouw (and others). Utrecht, "Published with financial
assistance of I.U.B.S.4.C.S.U.-U.N.E.S.C.O. by the International Bureau
for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature of the International Association
for Plant Taxonomy',' 1966. (Regnum Vegetabile 46) 402p. (Copies at API,
LiAg, WS, WFo, LiPl, DU, RoFo, A U , PU, WMu, WU.)
11th, Seattle, 1969
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the Eleventh
International Botanical Congress, Seattle, August, 1969, prepared and
edited by F . A . Stafleu (and others). Utrecht, "Published with financial
assistance of I.U.B.S.4.C.S.U.-U.N.E.S.C.O. by A . Opsthoek's Uitgeversmaatschappij N.V. for the International Association or Plant Taxonomy",
1972. (Regnum Vegetabile 81) 426p. (Copies at WU, WGe, AS, DU, WMu,
RoFo, CU.)
III. GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE
INTERNATIONAL CODES OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE:
CRITICISMS AND COMMENTARIES
(From this bibliography are excluded the Codes themselves and the official
documents associated with them, which have been listed above, also
excluded are various items for which bibliographic information was too
incomplete. Otherwise all items quoted in the essay, mentioned there and in
other parts of the study are included. An indication is given as to whether the
work is available in New Zealand and if so where. An asterisk attached to this
notation e.g. (LiPl*) means that the work has been seen.)
Amann, (and others). Proposition de changements aux lois de la nomenclature
botanique de 1867. . .par un group de botanistes beiges et suisses.
Geneve, 1904.45p.
American joint committee on horticultural nomenclature. Standardised plant
names. 2nd ed. Harrisburg, Pa., McFarland, 1942. (WU*)
Anonymous. American code of botanical nomenclature. Torrey Botanical Club
Bulletin 34: 167-178.(1907)
Anonymous. The nomenclature question in Notes. Nature 46: 549 (1892) (WU*)
Anonymous. The fifth International Botanical Congress. Nature 126: 406-407
(1930) (WU*)
Ascherson, and A . Engler. Erklarung der Geschaftsleitung der vom Internationales Botanischen Congress zu Genua (1892) eingesetzen
Nomenclatur-Commission. Abgegeben wahrend der 66 Versamlung
deutscher Naturforscher und Aertze im Wien in der Sitzung der Abtheilung
fur systematische Botanik am 25 September 1894. Oesterr. Botanisches
Zeitschrift 45(1): 327-335 (1895)
Association of American Geologists and Naturalists. Report on scientific
nomenclature, made to the Association, May, 1845. New Haven, Conn.,
1846.
166

Bell, C.R. Plant variation and classification. London, Macmillan. (1965?) (WP*)
(widely held)
Benson, Lyman. Plant taxonomy; methods and principles. New York, Ronald
Press Co., 1962. (WU*) (Note: Part II "Choice of names" includes 11.
'Popular and Scientific Names p.341-6; 12. 'Discussion of the International
Code of Botanical Nomenclature' p.346-368; and 13. 'Application of the
Code' p.368-390)
Botanical Gazette. Crawfordville, Ind., Chicago. 1(1875) The major journal
under the influence of the American School of nomenclators.
Briquet, John. Questions de nomenclature. Bull, de I'Herbier Boiser 2: 49-88
(1894)
Britten, James. American Nomenclature (1) Journal of Botany, British and
Foreign 33: 19-23 (1895) (WMu*) (Note: contains remarks quoted from
Rand, E.L. and J.R. Redfield in their "Flora of Mount Desert Island,
Main.")
Britten, James. American Nomenclature (2) ibid. 33: 149-152 (1895) (WMu*)
(Note: Quoted contents from Robinson, B.L. Criticism of the List of
Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta prepared by the Nomenclature Commission of the Torrey Botanical Club. The criticism was originally
published in Botanical Gazette for March 1895 (not seen).)
Britten, James. American Nomenclature (3) ibid. 33: 212-216 (1895) (WMu*)
(Note: contains extract from a private letter (later revealed as from E.L.
Smith), and also a Memorandum entitled "Recommendations regarding
the nomenclature of systematic botany.")
Britten, James. American Nomenclature (4) ibid. 33: 281-282 (1895) (WMu*)
(Note: contains a reply to the previous item by the editor of Science and a
continuation of the controversy.)
Britten, James. Book notes, news etc. ibid. 33: 351-2 (1895) (WMu*) (Note: a
continuation of the controversy in the previous item.)
Britten, James. Botanical Nomenclature, ibid. 26: 289-297 (1888) (WMu*)
(Note: contains letter from Alph. de Candolle and letter from N . L .
Britton, followed by Britten's comments.)
(Britten, James)? Botanical Nomenclature (Memorandum distributed by
Ascherson, Engler, Schumann and Urban concerning conserved names.)
ibid. 30: 241-242 (1892) (WMu*)
Britten, James.The plea for convenience, ibid. 30: 53-54 (1892) (WMu*)
Britten, James.Recent tendencies in American botanical nomenclature, ibid. 26:
257-262 (1888) (WMu*)
Buchenau, Franz. Einige nomenclaturfragen von speciellam und allgemeinerem
interesse. Botanische Jahrbucher 24: 648-668 (1898)(LiPl)
Buchenau, Franz. Recommendations (sic) regarding the nomenclature of
systematic botany. Botanische zeitung 53: 324-325 (1895) (LiPl)
Candolle, Alphonse de. Laws of Botanical nomenclature adopted by the
International Botanical Congress held at Paris in 1867, with an historical
introduction and a commentary. Translated from the French. London,
Reeve, 1868
Candolle, Alphonse de. A note on nomenclature. Journal of Botany, British and
167

Foreign 30: 135 (1892) (WMu)

Candolle, Alphonse de. Nouvelles remarques sur la nomenclature botanique,
supplement au commentaire de meme auteur qui accompagnit le texte des
lois. Geneve, H. George, 1883.
Candolle, Alphonse de. Response a diverses questions et critiques faites sur le
recueil des lois de la nomenclature botanique, tel que le congres
international de 1867 l'a public. Societe botanique de la France, Bulletin
16: (1869) (LiPl)
Cheeseman, T.F. Notes on botanical nomenclature, with remarks on the rules
adopted by the International Botanical Congress of Vienna. Transactions
and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute 40: 447-465 (1908)
(WU*etc)
Chronica botanica. Leyden; Waltham, Mass. 1(1935) - 33 (1962)
Chronica Botanica was for a time the official publishing company for the
International Botanical Congresses, before their affiliation with UNESCO.
Code de la nomenclature botanique, presente par la "Nomenclature Commission
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science". New York,
1904. 41 p. (Note: the identity of this item is doubtful;it has been said to
have 23 joint authors, and is perhaps a specimen Code to be considered by
the Vienna Congress. It has not been traceable.)
Crepin, F. La nomenclature botanique au congres international de botanique de
Paris. Rochefort, 28p. (1867)
Crepin, F. La question de la priorite des noms specifiques envisagee au point de
vue de genre Rosa. Geneve, 1897.
Douville, H . Regies proposees par le comite de la nomenclature palaeontologique. Congr. Geol. Internal. 1881. Comptes Rendus 2me serie.
Boulogne: p.594-599 (1881)(CMu)
Engler, A . (et al.) Le nouveau code botanique de Berlin. Bull, de ['Association
francais de botanique 4: (1901) (4p.)
Engler, A . , U . Dammer and P. Hennings. Zusatze zu de Berliner NomanclaturRegeln. Botanische Jahrbucher 30: 24-25 (1902) (LiPl)
Fee, A . L . A . Essai historique et critique sur la phytonomie ou nomenclature
vegetable.Travaux de la societe des amateurs des sciences de I'agriculture et
des arts a Lille. 161 -184 (1862-7)
Fernald, M.L. Some recent publications and the nomenclatorial problems they
represent. Botanical Gazette 31(3): 183-191 (1901) (LiPl)
Fournier, Eugene. Reforme de la nomenclature botanique par le Dr Saint-Lager.
Journal des Savants juillet-aout, 1880. (18p.)
Canning, W.F. and F.V. Colville. The nomenclature question. Botanical Gazette
(1895)
Gray, Asa. Botanical nomenclature. Journal of Botany, British and Foreign 25:
353-355 (1887) (WMu*)
Greene, E.L. A n unwritten law of botanical nomenclature. Leafl. Bot. Observ. 1:
201-205 (no date)
Hallier, Hans. New propositions to botanical nomenclature. Jahrbuch der
Hamburgischen wissenschaftlichcn anstalten 22: 3346 (1904).
Hallier, Hans. Das prolifierende personliche und der sachliche konservative
168

prioritats prinzip in der botanischen nomenclature; sonderdruck aus iiber

kautschuldianen und andere Apocyneen, nebst bemurkung iiber Hevea und
einem Versuch zur losung der nomenclatur-frage. Jahrbuch der
Hamburgischen wissenschaftlichen anstalten 17 Dritte Beihaft, 1899:
(12p.)
Harms, Hermann. Die nomenclatur-bewegung der letzen jahre im auftrage der
Nomenclatoriensmission besprochen von H . Harms. Botanische Jahrbucher
23(4) 1897: (32p.)
Harvard University, Cambridge Mass. (?)
Amendments to the Paris code of botanical nomenclature suggested for
the consideration of the Vienna Congress of 1905. Cambridge, Mass., 1904.
Heer, Oswald. Ueber das citiren der autoren. Gardenflora 23: 237-239 (1874)
Hemsley, W.B. Botanical Nomenclature. Nature (December 24th 1891) 45:
169-172. (Note: Contains review of Otto Kuntze's "Revisio genera
plantarum. . .") (WU*)
International Congress of Zoology. International code of zoological nomenclature adopted by the 1st International Congress of Zoology. (2nd ed.)
Edition of Committee; W.R. Stall, chairman (and others). London,
published for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 1964. xix, 175p.
(WMu* etc.)
International Congress of Zoology. Regies de la nomenclature zoologjque
adoptee par le Vme Congres de Zoologie. Verhandlungen des V Internationalen Zoologen-Kongresses zu Berlin 12-16 August 1901 (p.938-972).
Jena, G. Fischer, 1902.
International Congress of Zoology. Regies internationales de la nomenclature
zoologique adoptees par les congres internationaux de Zoologie, 1904.
Paris, F.R. de Rudeval, 1904. 57p.
Jackson, B.D. Notices of books. Journal of Botany, British and Foreign 30:
51-62 (1892). (Note: A review of the"Revisio Generum Plantarum. . ." of
O. Kuntze and evidently a major source for Cheeseman's paper (1908).)
Jackson, B.D. Notices of books. Nomenclature. Journal of Botany, British and
Foreign 33: 218-219 (1895). (Note: Contains reviews of Kuntze's
"Nomenclatur-studien", Ascherson and Engler's "Erklarung der
geschaftsieitung der vom internationalen botanisches Congress zu Genua
(1892)" and Kuntze's "Bemerkung zum kunftige botanischen
Nomenclatur-Congressen".)
Janchen, Erwin. Zur frage der totgeborenen namen in der botanischen
nomenclatur. Wien, Im selbstverlage der Verfassers, 1909. 28p.
Janchen, Erwin. Proposition d'une amplification de la liste du noms generiques
de phanerogames qui doivent etre conservees en tous cas. Wein, 1910.
Journal of Botany, British and Foreign. London 1 (1863)-80 no. 956 (Aug
1942) An influential voice in the controversy over nomenclature from
1890-1905, under the editorship of James Britten.
Knowlton, F . H . The nomenclature question; some inconsistencies in plant
nomenclature. Botanical Gazette 21 82-85 (1896) (LiPl)
Kuntze, Otto. Additions aux lois de la nomenclature botanique. Paris, 1900.
169

Kuntze, Otto. Les advantages de 1737 comme point de depart de la

nomenclature. Le Mans, Institut de bibliographie, 1899. (Note: "Traduit
du Gaernerische Centralblatt, Berlin 1899 no. 2.")
Kuntze, Otto. Les besoins de la nomenclature botanique. Le Mans, Imp. E. Mo
Monnoyer, 1895. (Note: "Extrait de Monde des Plantes.")
Kuntze, Otto. Die bewegung in der botanischer nomenclatur von ende 1891 bis
mai 1893. Botanisches Centralblatt 54: (32p.) (1893) (LiPl)
Kuntze, Otto. Codex nomenclaturae botanicae emendata ab Otto Kuntze.
Wurzburg, Druck von H . Sturtz, 1893. xxxiip. (Note: Also published in
Part III of the same author's "Revisio Genera Plantarum. . ." in 1898.)
Kuntze, Otto. Expose sur le congres pour la nomenclature botanique et six
propositions pour le congres de Paris en 1900. Geneve, 1900.
Kuntze, Otto. List seit 1891, bereits anerkannler legal renovirter und "nicht
verjahtter" phanerogamer gattungsnamen. Leipzig, 1898.
Kuntze, Otto. Nomenclatur-studien. Bulletin de I'Herbier Boissier 2(7): 456-498
(1894) (AR, LiPl)
Kuntze, Otto. La nomenclature reformee des algues et fungi, d'apres le Code
Parisien de 1867 et contre les fantaisies de M . Le Jolis. Paris, 1899.
Kuntze, Otto. Nomenclaturanfang und reform internationaler kongresse. Arnstadt, 1900.
Kuntze, Otto. Nomenclaturae botanicae codex brevis maturus, sensu codicis
emendati ex Lois de la nomenclature botanique de Paris de 1867; Unguis
internationalibus: anglica, gallica, germanica quoad nomina latina auctore
Otto Kuntze. Anhang zur vorgeschichtes des Wiener Nomenklaturkongresses, 1905. Stuttgart, Deutsche verlags-anstalt, 1903. lxivp.
Kuntze, Otto. Revisio generum plantarum vascularium omnium atque
cellularium multarum secundum leges nomenclaturae intemationales cum
enumeratione plantarum exoticarum in itinere mundi collectarum. . .mit
erlauterungen. Leipzig, A . Felix, 1891-98. 3v. (Note: Includes "Nomenclaturisches publicationen, kritiken und repliken"; Pars III (1):
(cix)-ccxlvii, also "Codex nomenclaturae botanicae emendatur"; Pars III:
ccclxxxv-ccccxix, "Supplementum" p. 163-167 (German, French and
English) and "Editio Italiana" (Italian) p. 168-180. (AR, LiPl).
Kuntze, Otto. Ueber neue nomenclatorische aeusserungen. Cassel, 1899.
Kuntze, Otto. Die vorteilen von 1737 als nomenclatur-anfang. Gaemerischer
Centralblatt. (?) 1899.
Linnaeus, Carl. Critica botanica, in qua nomina plantarum generica specifica et
variantia examini subjiciuntur, selectiora confirmuntur, indigna rejiciuntur
simulque doctrina irca denominationem plantarum traditur seu
Fundamentorum Botanicorum pars IV. Lugduni Batavorum, 1737.
Linnaeus, Carl. The "Critica botanica" of Linnaeus. Translated by Sir Arthur
Hort.. .revised by Miss M.L. Green. London, Ray Society, 1938. (LiPl,
DU, AR)
Linnaeus, Carl. Fundamenta botanica, quae majorum operum prodromi instar
theoriam scientiae botanicas per breves aphorismas tradunt. Amstelodami,
1736. (AR)
Linnaeus, Carl. Philosophia botanica, in qua explicantur fundamenta botanica
170

cum definitionibus parium. . . Holmiae, 1751.

Linnaeus, Carl. Species plantarum exhibientes plantas rite cognitas ad genera
relatas cum differentiis specificis, nominalibus trivialibus, synonymis
selectis, locis natalibus secundum systema sexuale digestas. Holmiae, 1753.
2v. (Facisms, WMu, WN, A R , LiPl, WU, AU:B*)
McVaugh, R. (and others) An annotated glossary of botanical nomenclature with
special reference to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature as
adopted by the 10th International Botanical Congress at Edinburgh 1964.
Utrecht, I.A.P.T., 1968. (Regnum Vegetabile56XNote: an invaluable guide
by experts to the complicated and esoteric terminology of the Code. It
includes also "The International Organisation of Botanical Nomenclature.")
[Madison Code]. Proceedings of the botanical club of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science. Madison meeting, August 18-22, 1893.
Bull. Torrey Botanical Club 20: 360-361 (1893). (Note: Not seen, title
and entry doubtful, so sought entry used; also published in Botanical
Gazette 18: 342-343 (1893). (LiPl).)
Oliver, W.R.B. Additional articles and emendations to the International Rules of
Botanical Nomenclature, proposed by W.R.B. Oliver, Director of the
Dominion Museum, Wellington, New Zealand. Wellington H . H . T[ombs,
1929] 2p. in 4. (WMu*)
Pound, Roscoe. Dr Kuntze's "Nomenclatur-studien." Boston, 1894.
Rand, E.L. Nomenclature from the practical standpoint. Botanical Gazette (?):
318(1891)
Regnum Vegetabile (International Bureau for Plant Taxonomy.) Utrecht
1(1951) . The Codes have been published as issues of Regnum Vegetabile
since 1952. Other monographs on nomenclature and botanical history are
published by R. V., as well as many miscellaneous items.
Rehder, A . (and others). Plant nomenclature; more suggestions. Journal of
Botany, British and Foreign 59 (1921) (Note: p.289-294 by Rehder;
294-296 by Gore; p.296-297 by Britton.) (WMu*)
Rehder, A . Proposed amendments to the International Rules of Botanical
Nomenclature. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 10: 46-65 (1929)
(WMu* reprint)
Rehder, A . The varietal categories in botanical nomenclature and their historical
development. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 8: 56-68 (1927) (WMu*)
Rendle, A . B . The botanical congress at Vienna. Nature 72: 272-274 (1905)
(WU*)
Rendle, A.B. The international botanic congress at Brussels. Nature 83: 534-536
(1914) (WU*)
Rendle, A.B. International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the 5th
International Botanical Congress, Cambridge, 1930. Journal of Botany,
British and Foreign. Supplement to 72, (1934) (WMu, but supplement
missing.)
Robinson, B.L. The Madison rules. Botanical Gazette (?) : (1895)
Robinson, B.L. The publication of new binomials in works of composite
171

authorship. (Berkeley, Calif., 1897). (Note: Probably an article in a serial,

not identified.)
Robinson, B.L. On the "List of Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta of North
America Botanical Gazette (?) : 1895
Robinson, B.L. (and others?) Propositions de changements aux lois de la
nomenclature botanique de 1867.. .par les botanistes attachees al'Herbier
Gray, a l'Herbier crypotogamique et au Musee botanique de l'Universite
Harvard. Cambridge, Mass., "Societe botanique de Nouvelle Angleterre",
1904. (Note: This appears to be one of the versions of the "American
Code". I am doubtful that it was really written in French, and still more
doubtful as to the identity of its alleged publisher, but I quote the
reference more or less as given in the single reference I know which
mentions it.)
Robinson, B.L. Some reasons why the Rochester nomenclature cannot be
regarded as a consistent or stable system. Botanical Gazette (?): 1895
[Rochester Code] Report on the proceedings of the botanical club of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science at the Rochester
meeting. (Rochester Code). Botanical Gazette (?): 287-288 (1892) (Note:
Also published in Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club (?): 290-292
(1892) (LiPl*)
Saint-Lager, J. Nouvelles remarques sur la nomenclature botanique. Annates de
la societe botanique de Lyon (?): (55p.) (1881)
Saint-Lager, J. La perfidie des homonymes: Aloes purgatif et bois d'aloes
aromatiques. Lyon, Imp. de A . Rey, 1903. 12p.
Saint-Lager, J . , La priorite des noms de plantes. Paris, Balliere et fils, 1890. 31p.
Saint-Lager, J. Le proces de la nomenclature botanique et zoologjque. Paris,
Saint-Lager, J. Reforme de la nomenclature botanique. Annates de la societe
botanique de Lyon (?): (155p) (1880)
Stafleu, F.A. Linnaeus and the Linnaeans: The spread of their ideas in
systematic Botany 1735-1789. Utrecht, I.A.P.T., 1971. (Regnum
Vegetabile 79) (WU, WMu*)
Stafleu, F.A. Nomenclature at Seatde. Taxon 19(1): 3646 (1970)
Steam, W.T. Botanical latin, history, grammar, syntax, terminoloty and
vocabulary. London, Nelson, 1966. (WU, WP*,AP*,Au:B etc)
Stout, A.B. The nomenclature of cultivated plants. American Journal o1 Botany
27(5): 339-347 (1940).
Strickland, H.E. Rules for zoological nomenclature. Report of the 12tn meeting
of the British Association held at Manchester in 1842. British Association
for the Advancement of Science. Report: 105-121 (1842)
Symposium on Botanical Nomenclature and Taxonomy, Utrecht, 1948.
Botanical Nomenclature and taxonomy, edited by J. Lanjouw. Waltham,
Mass. Chronica Botanica Co., 1950 (International Union of Biological
Sciences, Series B: Colloquia no.2): (Chronica Botanica 72)1-2 (87p.)
(Note: Contains the minutes of a conference at Utrecht at which proposed
amendments to the Code were discussed, with a bibliography of items of
criticism (p.10-11). There are two supplements (1) by J. Lanjouw: "On
the need for an international Society of Plant Taxonomists"; (2)
172

containing lists of the members of committees of the International

Commission for Nomenclature and also "International Rules of Botanical
Nomenclature. Supplement embodying the alterations made at the sixth
International Botanical Congress, Amsterdam 1935, compiled by T.A.
Sprague." Also included are some title page facsimiles, e.g. of the "Lois"
of DeCandolle (1867) and the "Critica Botanica" of Linnaeus (1737).)
Taxon (International Association for Plant Taxonomy). Utrecht. 1(1951) The
official journal of the I.A.P.T., published in 4 to 6 instalments per year.
The most important source by far for contemporary discussions of
botanical nomenclature; it is obligatory to publish proposals on modification of the Code in Taxon.
Ward, L . F . The nomenclature question. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club (?)
(1895).
Watson, S. On nomenclature. Botanical Gazette 17 (?): (1892). (Note:
Reprinted in Nature 47: 54 (1892).) (WU*)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This review and bibliography is a revision of a Critics Assignment written while
the author was a student at the New Zealand Library School, National Library
of New Zealand, in 1974, and is published by arrangement with the Director of
the School. The author wishes to thank Mrs B. Gault for preparation of the final
typescript.

REFERENCES
'Stability of nomenclature is not the aim of the current codes: these aim at the
provision of a stable system of naming taxonomic groups. (Preamble,
stated above)
sic! Gray died in 1891: he followed the Candollean Laws (1867)
The Rochester Group
"The "KewRule"
'It is surprising to see the extent to which the idea of "credit" for describing
species was entertained!
"Library symbols are those used in New Zealand Library Symbols. Wellington,
National Library of New Zealand, 1971.
2
3

173

Professor Briggs and Honi at Whangaparapara, Great Barrier, with Field Club, 1938.

174