history of international code of botanical nomenclature 1

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 –Linnaean Practices
Linnaean Practices
Post –Linnaean Practices

4. 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

5. Scientific Names :-
Btanical Nomenclature:
• Art of assignning names.
• Assignning names to plants –botanical
nomenclature
1.Polynomial nomenclature
2.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 Paris
• 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),
• Led 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
• Rejected names
• Necessitated 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