Skip to main content
UploadLanguage (EN)Support
BusinessMobileSocial MediaMarketingTechnologyArt & PhotosCareerDesignEducationPresentations & Public SpeakingGovernment & NonprofitHealthcareInternetLawLeadership & ManagementAutomotiveEngineeringSoftwareRecruiting & HRRetailSalesServicesScienceSmall Business & EntrepreneurshipFoodEnvironmentEconomy & FinanceData & AnalyticsInvestor RelationsSportsSpiritualNews & PoliticsTravelSelf ImprovementReal EstateEntertainment & HumorHealth & MedicineDevices & HardwareLifestyle
nasira jaffry, profile picture
Uploaded bynasira jaffry
PPTX, PDF10,151 views

History of international code of botanical nomenclature 1

The document discusses the history and development of botanical nomenclature from pre-Linnaean to post-Linnaean practices. It explains that early plant names were common names that varied locally and lacked scientific rigor. Scientific naming began with polynomial names but these were long and unwieldy. Various botanists proposed reformation efforts with mixed results until Linnaeus established the binomial nomenclature system of generic and specific names in Latin in 1753. This provided universality but was not universally adopted. A series of international botanical congresses developed and refined the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature to standardize naming practices globally.

Science◦
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 Malus malus. 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