IAPT, re Rasmussen from Greuter

[W. BERENDSOHN]

The original message appeared on Taxacom, so I think the answer should
be here as well. The reply to Anderson et al. (see
http://mason.gmu.edu/~ckelloff/vfunk/urgent.html) referred to in the
first paragraph appears under
http://mason.gmu.edu/~ckelloff/vfunk/wgletter.html on the  WWW.

W. Berendsohn


------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From:          "PROF. DR. W. GREUTER" <FS_BGBM1/WG>
To:            FinnR at bot.ku.dk
Date:          Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:38:25 +0000
Subject:       IAPT
Cc:            wgb

Dear Dr Rasmussen,

your comment to Taxacom relates. Had you read my reply to the
earlier diatribe of Anderson et al., you would hardly have had to ask:
"The relevant question is: has the present secretarariat tried to
obstruct the election or not?" It has NOT.

But my reason to write is not to reiterate my earlier statements, it
is to try and dissipate a misunderstanding that, although nowhere as
clearly stated as in your comment, appears to be pervading much of the
present turmoil.

As everybody could (and should) know, IAPT (while being committed to
facilitate nomenclatural procedures, mechanisms and committee work)
has NO GOVERNANCE WHATEVER over the rules of nomenclature, either as
an association (through its membership) or through its officers or
councillors.

The IAPT membership (with a handful of other, explicitly entitled
persons) has this as its single nomenclatural privilege, that it can
express its opinion on nomenclature proposals, before they are acted
upon, by a "preliminary, guiding mail vote" (call it a straw vote).
The final voting right in matters relating to the nomenclatural Code,
however, pertains to the Nomenclature Section of an International
Congress and is not in any way tied to IAPT membership, be it
institutional or personal.

It has happened in the past that ideas opposed by a majority of the
voting IAPT membership (usually after introduction of some amendment
taking care of part of the objections raised) are accepted, perhaps by
a large majority, at the Nomenclature Sessions of an International
Botanical Congress. This may put the Association's officers under the
obligation to abide by decisions toward which a substantial portion of
the membership, perhaps a majority, feels sceptical. Trial
registration, for which the IAPT received and accepted a mandate at
the last Congress, is a case in point.

Unhappiness with nomenclatural rules and proposals should be voiced at
the next IBC in St Louis. To make this an issue and argument in IAPT
elections is plainly off the mark.

Werner Greuter
------- End of Forwarded Message -------
------- Message Replied to follows ---------
Dr. Trehane wrote:

> This may all sound a bit sycophantic and I should make it clear
> that..

It does indeed. Lets keep sycophantism out of the IAPT polemic. The
relevant question is: has the present secretarariat tried to obstruct
the election or not?

It would seem that a revolt in IAPT is an internal affair that should
not bother TAXACOM'ers who are not members. On the other hand, we are
all users of botanical nomenclature (even the zoologists are). I
wonder how many botanical taxonomists are actually members of IAPT? I
guess it is a minority, perhaps a rather small minority. Isn't it
disturbing that a subject with so far reaching consequences as
nomenclature is controlled by a (perhaps rather small) society, where
the officers usually are picked by their predecessors without much
debate? Or is this really the way it should be: nomenclature is
perhaps so complicated that decisions about rules etc. is better left
to a clique of autogamous experts?

Biological systematics has changed much since the time of Linnaeus,
and it migh tbe worth reconsidering some of the foundations of
"Linnean" practices, such as binomial names and the relations between
phylogeny and hierachy. I wonder if such issues are being discussed
when new members of the inner nomclatural circles are selected.

Finn Rasmussen (not member of IAPT).
------- End of Message Replied to ---------