Search

The arguments towards resolving the Acacia nomenclatural controversy put forth by Thiele & al. (2011) are reviewed and rebutted. We argue that a truly pragmatic and, moreover, defensible and equitable alternative to accepting the retypification of Acacia Mill. with a conserved type would be to have the 2006 International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, excluding this retypification, serve as the basis for discussions at the Nomenclature Section of the Melbourne International Botanical Congress in 2011. We, and a large component of the international taxonomic community, and beyond, remain convinced that the minority rule voting procedure used at Vienna on Acacia was inappropriate, resulting in animosity that will without any doubt linger until this situation is rectified. Such a minority rule procedure has never in the history of Nomenclature Sections been implemented before. Exclusion of the Acacia retypification can be achieved through a democratic process by objecting to its inclusion when the printed (2006) Code comes up for adoption at the start of the Nomenclature Section. This is perfectly within the established process that has been used in past Section meetings. The integrity of the Code will suffer permanent damage if the retypification of Acacia Mill. with a conserved type is not removed from the ICBN, especially as it ended up there through a minority decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper briefly reports on the developments surrounding the Acacia name conservation controversy since the Nomenclature Section meeting at the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress at Vienna in 2005. Actions taken at Vienna led to the listing of Acacia Mill. with a conserved type in Appendix lii (p. 286) of the current printed version of the International code of botanical nomenclature. While decisions taken at Nomenclature Sections generally tend to resolve nomenclatural disputes, the actions taken in Vienna with regard to Acacia-i.e., treating the proposal to conserve the name Acacia with a conserved type as approved even though the majority of the votes cast were opposed to the proposal-has only resulted in increased controversy. Today, the Acacia listing in the Code continues to be met with considerable resistance from the global plant taxonomic community and beyond. We believe the "minority rule" approach used in Vienna was contrary to the procedural rules established in Vienna. As a result, an objection to the acceptance of the Vienna Code as currently printed with the Acacia listing will be raised at the Nomenclature Section meeting during the Eighteenth International Botanical Congress in Melbourne in 2011. A procedure is outlined for handling this objection that we hope will allow the botanical community to finally resolve this matter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We here document what happened in Melbourne, Australia, in July 2011, regarding the confirmation of the inclusion of Acacia Mill. with A. penninervis as its conserved type in the Vienna Code. The procedures followed by the Nomenclature Section of the XVIII International Botanical Congress (IBC) are outlined and briefly described as far as they pertain to Acacia. The 2005 outcome of the controversial proposal to retypifyAcacia Mill. from an African to an Australian type was confirmed by the Nomenclature Section following the ratification of the 2006, Vienna, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN or Code) including the entry for Acacia. This, and other, decisions of the Nomenclature Section were in turn ratified by the final closing plenary session of the IBC held on 30 July 2011. The now-effective Code (incidentally in the future the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants) emanating from the XVIII IBC, will therefore include Acacia, with a conserved type, in the Appendix dealing with "Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda". If the traditional classification system is followed that applies the name Acacia in a broad sense to an assemblage of legume species comprising a number of subgenera, this decision holds no implications at generic rank. However, should the alternative classification which segregates a broadly defined Acacia into a number of genera be followed, then the name Acacia would apply in a strict sense to the mainly Australian wattles (formerly Acacia subg. Phyllodineae, now Acacia subg. Acacia). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the Nomenclature Section of the XVIII International Botanical Congress that took place in Melbourne, Australia, from 18 to 22 July 2011, it was decided to allow English to be used as an alternative language for producing validating descriptions and diagnoses of new taxa of organisms covered by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, which is to be renamed the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants; on and after 1 January 2012 this can be done in English or Latin. Until then, names of new non-fossil taxa must continue to be provided with a Latin description or diagnosis in order to be validly published. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]