history of international code of botanical nomenclature 1
TRANSCRIPT
INTRODUCTION:-
“The nomenclature involves the principle govern by rules
formulated and adopted by international botanical congress
,the rules developed by ibc are listed formally in a code called
international code of botanical nomenclature.”
HISTORY:-
Pre –Linnaean Practices
Linnaean Practices
Post –Linnaean Practices
PRE –LINNAEAN PRACTICES:-
Common Names:• Earliest names of plants were common names
• Based on normal language
• EXAMPLES:
1. Clove
2. Pulse
Drawbacks• Local distribution
• Ignorance of relevent biological facts among the lay public• Change with time
• Single coomon name apply to many species• Many species that are rare or lake economic importace don’t
have a common name
Scientific Names :-
Btanical Nomenclature:
• Art of assignning names.
• Assignning names to plants –botanical
nomenclature
1.Polynomial nomenclature
2.Binomial nomenclature
Pre –Linnaean Practices:-POLYNOMIAL NAMES:-
Names consisting of multiple terms
Example:-
DRABACKS:
No universality
Not easy to handle
Long and difficult to record
E.L.Greene:• Reformation of nomenclature.
• Rejects generic names composed of
two words in favour of those consisting
of one generic name.
Drawbacks • Different naming in text and
illusterations
• EXAMPLE:wood sanicle
Sanicula (text) Diapensia (figure)
Leonard Fcuhs:
• Historia stirpium (1542)
• Proposed new genera includig
Digitalis
• By genera he meant species
Drawbacks:
• Genera contain binary names
• EXAMPLE:Vitis Vinifera
Targus (1498-1554):• First person to describe plants.
• Generic names could be altered if desired.
EXAMPLE:Plantago aquatica corresponds to German name
Wasser Wegerich
Drawbacks • Did not give importance to Latin
• No permanent name for plants
• Binary generic names
Euricius Cordus:
• Described many plants in German
• First man to establish many genera
• Many improvements in classification and
nomenclature
• Has some regard for priority of names.
Drawbacks:
• One specie contain many different names.
Casper bauhin:• Casper Bauhin Pinax
• Order in systematic botany and
nomenclature
• Introduced the concept of binomial
nomenclature
• Projected larger work with description and
figure
• Work was used by Linneaus
Drawbacks :
• Used both polynomial and binomial
names
Tournefort:
• Uninomial generic name
but some are binomial
EXAMPLE:Ruta
muraria,Carophyllus
aromaticus
Drawbacks • Not advanced
• artificial
2-Linnaean Practices:-
Binomial Nomenclature:
• Inspired from Bauhin work• Formulated rules for the
nomenclature of plants and animals• Species Plantarum (1753)
Rules:• Generic name
• Specific epithet
• Origin of generic name
Noun
On the basis of renowned scientist e.g Ahmadiago
Poetic or Methological e.g Nymphea-lovely water nymph
Characteristic features Liniodendron
Land e.g Betula old name of birch
• Origin of specific epithet
In the honour of scientist Clavatia ahmadiana
Geographical locality e.g Rumax nepalensis
Characteristic features Morus alba
• Latin language
Drawbacks:
• work was not internationally recognized
3-Post –Linnaean Practices:-
International Code Of
Botanical Nomenclature:
1- Paris Code:
• A.P.de Candolle
• First IBC in 1867 in Paris
• Rules based on Linnaeus work were
discussed
Drawbacks:
• No practicle application.
B-Index Kewensis:• The Index Kewensis (IK), maintained by the Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew, is a publication.• hat aims to register all botanical names for seed plants at the
rank of species and genera. It later came to include names of taxonomic families and ranks below that of species.
• Do generic reduction• The original two volumes of Index Kewensis contained nearly
400,000 names. Some 6,000 additional names are added annually and hard-copy supplements are published at 5-yearly intervals. The most recent supplement was the twentieth which was published in 1996.
DRAWBACKS:• Generic reduction no correct name can be identified
C- Rochester Code (1892):• Modification of Paris code
• Species designated should be based
upon herbarium specimen for the
binomial (type specimen)• Application of rule of priority even if the
name was a tautonym (specific epithet repeating the generic name e.g Malusmalus.
Drawbacks:• Not accepted by Americans as they have
problem with tautonyms
D-Paris (1900):• first International Botanical Congress
in Paris in 1900
• agreed that a special session on
Nomenclature be held at the second
IBC in Vienna in 1905.
• published in 1906
Drawbacks:
• Congress declined to accept detailed
proposals of the U.S. delegation led by
N.L. Britton, involving the introduction
of the type method (as opposed to a
circumscriptional method),
• Led to a separate Brittonian Code (the
“American Code” of 1907).
E-Vienna Code:• Linnaeus as the starting point;
• tautonym was not accepted
• latin diagnosis was made
assential for new species In
addition, a list of conserved
names (Nomina generic
conservanda ) was approved
Drawbacks:
• ot accepted by Amaricans as
they did not accept the list of
conserved name.
F-Amarican code (1907):• did not accept the list of
conserved names and requirement for Latin diagnosis.
• Type method was the characteristic
DRAWBACK:-• Latin word not used. • It was not universal.
G-BRUSSELS CONGRESS (1910):-
• additions and modifications in Vienna
Code
• E.g :Combretum and Nuphar -
H-Cambridge:• The type method incorporated
• Latin requirement deferred until 1932
• "absolute homonym rule" accepted, or "once
a later homonym always illegitimate (unless
conserved)", which altered the status of many
names, including many that had previously
been conserved
• The Cambridge Code was not published until
1935.
• This code was accepted by previous
proponents of the American Code, ending a
period of schism
i-Amsterdam (1935):
• English became the official
language of the Congress,
replacing French.
• No formal Code was
published.
J-Stockholm (1950):• congresses every five years
(except four years for the next one).
• Adoption of the first International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
• arbitrary dates defined for some foundational works; decision to hold future
K-Paris(1954):• was established to find ways to
improve the stability of names.• Two additional principles
added, II and III, dealing with types and with priority.
• Proposals to conserve or reject specific names were rejected, but a committee was established to find ways to improve the stability of names
Montreal:
• Adoption of a completely
reworked list of conserved
and
• Rejected names
• Necessitated by changes
made at the 1930 congress.
• Decision that rules of priority
do not apply above the rank of
family
Edinburgh:• No major changes to the code
Seattle:• Established the International
Association of Bryologists