History of international code of botanical nomenclature 1

history of international code of botanical nomenclature 1

1. HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL CODE OF BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE Tehreem Aslam (06) Jawaria Raheem (09) Nigar habib (13 )

2. 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.”

3. HISTORY:- Pre – L innaean P ractices Linnaean Practices Post –Linnaean Practices

4. PRE –LINNAEAN PRACTICES :- Common Names: Earliest names of plants were common names Based on normal language EXAMPLES: Clove 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

5. Scientific Names :- Btanical Nomenclature: Art of assignning names. Assignning names to plants –botanical nomenclature Polynomial nomenclature Binomial nomenclature

6. Pre –Linnaean Practices:- POLYNOMIAL NAMES:- Names consisting of multiple terms Example:- DRABACKS: No universality Not easy to handle Long and difficult to record

7. 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)

8. Leonard Fcuhs : Historia stirpium (1542) Proposed new genera includig Digitalis By genera he meant species Drawbacks: Genera contain binary names EXAMPLE:Vitis Vinifera

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. Tournefort : Uninomial generic name but some are binomial EXAMPLE:Ruta muraria,Carophyllus aromaticus Drawbacks Not advanced artificial

13. 2-Linnaean Practices :- Binomial Nomenclature : Inspired from Bauhin work Formulated rules for the nomenclature of plants and animals Species Plantarum (1753)

14. 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

15. Drawbacks: work was not internationally recognized

16. 3-Post –Linnaean Practices :- International Code Of Botanical Nomenclature: 1- Paris Code: A.P.de Candolle First IBC in 1867 in P aris Rules based on Linnaeus work were discussed Drawbacks: No practicle application.

17. 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

18. 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 Malus malus . Drawbacks: Not accepted by Americans as they have problem with tautonyms

19. 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), L ed to a separate Brittonian Code (the “ American Code ” of 1907).

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. G-BRUSSELS CONGRESS (1910):- additions and modifications in Vienna Code E.g : Combretum and Nuphar -

23. 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

24. i-Amsterdam (1935): English became the official language of the Congress, replacing French. No formal Code was published .

25. 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

26. 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

27. Montreal: Adoption of a completely reworked list of conserved and R ejected names N ecessitated by changes made at the 1930 congress .  Decision that rules of priority do not apply above the rank of family

28. Edinburgh: No major changes to the code Seattle: Established the International Association of Bryologists