[Taxacom] FW: Call for proxy votes fortheforthcomingInternational Botanical Congress

Wed Jul 6 10:55:19 CDT 2011

from a complete ignorant:

what if most of the 1,600 names were seldom cited,
while some among the 160 names were intensively used in the literature 
(scientific and else)?

I presume that the "potential trouble" concerns the effective past and 
current use of names
[rather than the number of names per se?]...

Pierre

Le 06/07/2011 17:35, John Grehan a écrit :
> So does this mean that there are 1,600 species that would no longer be
> Acacia (presumably because they are more closely related to other taxa)
> and would therefore have to have a new generic assignment, and so it is
> being proposed that the name Acacia be assigned to a different type for
> this new group?
>
> John Grehan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kirk [mailto:p.kirk at cabi.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:40 AM
> To: John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: Call for proxy votes
> fortheforthcomingInternational Botanical Congress
>
> Preamble
>
> 1. "... . This Code aims at the provision of a stable method of naming
> taxonomic groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names which may
> cause error or ambiguity or throw science into confusion. ..."
>
> the original type has been changed by a nomenclatural process called
> conservation ... so that 160 names change rather than 1200  ... for what
> has been argued as the solution promoting name stability
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
> Sent: 06 July 2011 14:34
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: Call for proxy votes forthe
> forthcomingInternational Botanical Congress
>
> Thanks. So what is the argument about over whether the name Acacia
> should be used for Australian or African-American species of Acacia? Why
> is it not simply a case that the monophyletic group with the type name
> is the one that would retain the Acacia label?
>
> John Grehan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thiele, Kevin [mailto:Kevin.Thiele at dec.wa.gov.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:16 AM
> To: John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] FW: Call for proxy votes forthe
> forthcomingInternational Botanical Congress
>
> There is wide agreement that Acacia sens. lat. is non-monophyletic,
> comprising several discrete clades that are separated within the
> mimosoids. In this sense it's a classic example of a polyphyletic group,
> in the commonly understood sense of the word.
>
> Note that the first indication that it is not a monophyletic group came
> from morphological and anatomical studies beginning in the 1970s. These
> have since been amply confirmed by molecular studies.
>
> Cheers - Kevin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2011 8:27 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: Call for proxy votes forthe forthcoming
> International Botanical Congress
>
> I'm not a botanical taxonomist so I am not familiar with the state of
> affairs concerning Acacia. I note that it is said that "The large,
> cosmopolitan genus Acacia sens. lat. is now widely recognized to be
> para- or polyphyletic, comprising five distinct clades, each of which is
> now treated as a distinct genus."
>
> Could someone clarify the above. What is the uncertainty about whether
> Acacia is paraphyletic or polyphylectic? If there is uncertainty, why
> the rush to change the taxonomy? I presume in my ignorance, that if
> paraphyletic, Acacia as currently construed does not include some other
> group under another genus (in which case one might just expand Acacia to
> include that group), or if polyphyletic, that one or more groups within
> Acacia are more closely related to another group and if that is the
> case, do such group/s include the type? So what is really the issue here
> - paraphyly or polyphyly?
>
> And is this drive for changing things driven by molecular incongruence
> with morphological systematics of Acacia?
>
> I will be interested in some clarification from those involved with
> Acacia systematics and taxonomy.
>
> John Grehan
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Kirk
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:49 AM
> To: Thiele, Kevin; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: Call for proxy votes forthe forthcoming
> International Botanical Congress
>
> ditto ...
>
> Preamble
>
> 1. "... . This Code aims at the provision of a stable method of naming
> taxonomic groups, avoiding and rejecting the use of names which may
> cause error or ambiguity or throw science into confusion. ..."
>
> nuff said?
>
> In haste,
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Thiele, Kevin
> Sent: 06 July 2011 08:44
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] FW: Call for proxy votes for the forthcoming
> International Botanical Congress
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> with all respect, that's exactly what the conservation provisions in the
> Code are designed for - there are many more species of Acacia in
> Australia than in Africa+America, and hence conserving the name with an
> Australian type greatly reduces the global number of name changes
> required - surely a good thing on balance.
>
> Cheers - Kevin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Heads
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2011 1:50 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Call for proxy votes for the forthcoming
> International Botanical Congress
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> With all respect, I don't think these are 'complex matters'. Africa had
> the type and Australia grabbed it. They justified this because they have
> more species in it, i.e. for no reason at all.
>
> Michael Heads
>
> Wellington, New Zealand.
>
> My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0
>
> --- On Wed, 6/7/11, Thiele, Kevin<Kevin.Thiele at dec.wa.gov.au>  wrote:
>
>
> From: Thiele, Kevin<Kevin.Thiele at dec.wa.gov.au>
> Subject: [Taxacom] Call for proxy votes for the forthcoming
> International Botanical Congress
> To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu"<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Wednesday, 6 July, 2011, 5:30 PM
>
>
> A very important issue will be debated and decided at the forthcoming
> International Botanical Congress in Melbourne in a little over a week,
> brought to the fore by questions around the application of the name
> Acacia.
>
> You may know that Acacia nomenclature has generated a lot of controversy
> in the taxonomic, nomenclatural and wider community. Essentially, an
> argument has developed over whether the name Acacia should be used for
> Australian or African-American species of Acacia sens. lat. At the last
> Congress in Vienna a decision was taken to retain the name for
> Australia. Since then, a vocal group hostile to this decision has
> campaigned to have the it reversed at the Melbourne Congress. In
> essence, they are seeking to have the process used in Vienna declared
> invalid and hence set aside.
>
> The votes that will be taken on this issue have much wider implications
> than simply a resolution of the Acacia issue, possibly including
> far-reaching consequences for the future conduct of botanical
> nomenclature. This email is to encourage institutions that are unable to
> attend the Melbourne IBC Nomenclature Section meeting to consider being
> represented there by proxy. It may well be that proxy votes are critical
> for many of the votes that will be taken there.
>
> If you have an interest in this matter, agree with the position outlined
> below, and would like to have your vote counted, please consider casting
> a proxy vote at the Melbourne IBC (note that only institutions may cast
> proxy votes). Details on how to do this are at the end of the email
> below.
>
> Apologies for the length of this email, but these are somewhat complex
> matters. Note that the Melbourne Nomenclature Section meeting is a
> little over a week away, so if you are convinced after reading this that
> the issue is important, please act without delay.
>
> If you're still interested, please read on.
>
> Regards
>
> Kevin Thiele
> Curator, Western Australian Herbarium (PERTH)
>
>
> Background
>
> The five sections below provide (1) a summary of the original proposal
> to conserve Acacia, (2) a summary of the events in Vienna and the
> subsequent controversy and opposing positions, (3) an outline of the
> potential negative consequences of the proposed Melbourne challenge to
> the Vienna decision, (4) an outline of the process for casting proxy
> votes and (5) links to the most important references for further reading
> on both sides of the debate.
>
> 1. The conservation of Acacia with a conserved type
>
> The large, cosmopolitan genus Acacia sens. lat. is now widely recognized
> to be para- or polyphyletic, comprising five distinct clades, each of
> which is now treated as a distinct genus. Two of these clades are
> relevant to the current debate. One is a large, predominantly Australian
> group of 1021 species, the other is a smaller, pan-tropical group
> comprising 163 species in Africa, Asia, the Americas and northern
> Australia.
>
> The historical type of Acacia, A. scorpioides (L.) W. Wight (= A.
> nilotica (L.) Delile), belongs to the smaller pan-tropical group, so if
> simple priority applied then the name Acacia would be retained for this
> group.
>
> In 2003, a proposal to conserve Acacia with a new type, the Australian
> species A. penninervis, was published (Orchard&  Maslin, 2003). The
> proposal was made on the grounds of nomenclatural stability, as required
> by the Code. Central to the proponents' arguments was that conserving
> Acacia with a type from the much larger Australian group would be least
> disruptive globally because many fewer names would need to be changed.
> They also argued that a number of Australian species of Acacia are
> significant environmental weeds while others form the basis of large,
> global, economically important industries in timber and other products
> and that these industries would be substantially disadvantaged by a name
> change in their literature and marketed products. See Orchard&  Maslin
> (2003) for additional arguments supporting the case.
>
> Acceptance of the Orchard&  Maslin proposal would mean that the 163
> pan-tropical species would be called Vachellia while the 1021 mostly
> Australian species would continue to be called Acacia; its rejection
> would retain the name Acacia for the pan-tropical species while
> requiring the adoption of the name Racosperma for the Australian
> species.
>
> In brief, conservation proposals such as this one are handled in the
> following steps:
>
> (1). A proposal to conserve a name is published in Taxon.
> (2). The Committee for Vascular Plants (formerly called the Committee
> for Spermatophyta) considers the proposal, seeks submissions, and
> eventually votes on whether to support it or not. A 60% majority vote in
> favour is needed for the proposal to go to the next step.
> (3). The General Committee of the IBC, after considering the Committee
> for Vascular Plant's report, votes on whether to accept it or not. A 60%
> majority vote in favour is needed for the proposal to go to the next
> step.
> (4). The Nomenclature Section of the IBC, after considering the General
> Committee's report, votes on whether to accept it or not. If accepted,
> the Nomenclature Section includes the proposal in a Resolution submitted
> to the final Plenary Session of the Congress.
> (5). If the Nomenclature Section's Resolution is approved by the
> Plenary, all included amendments and proposals are adopted in the
> International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and its Appendices.
>
> In the Acacia case, the proposal was considered by the Committee for
> Spermatophyta and the General Committee, both of which voted to support
> it by the required 60% majority. Accordingly, the General Committee
> reported to the Nomenclature Section of the Vienna Congress and
> recommended that the proposal be accepted. The Chairman of the Committee
> for Spermatophyta published the reasons why that committee voted in
> support of the proposal (see Brummitt 2004).
>
> 2. The Vienna IBC, and the controversy since
>
> The Report of the General Committee regarding Acacia was presented on
> the last day of the Nomenclature Section meeting in Vienna. Before
> considering the matter, the President of the Section recommended that,
> because both Committees who had previously considered this proposal had
> passed it with a required supermajority of 60%, a 60% vote against would
> be required to reject the General Committee's report and recommendation.
> This recommendation was accepted by the meeting without dissent.
> Following a lengthy debate, 54% of votes were cast to reject the General
> Committee's decision; as this was less than the required 60% majority,
> the Committee's decision was not rejected. Subsequently, at the final
> plenary session of the Congress, the decisions of the Nomenclature
> Section, including the decision on Acacia, were ratified by a large
> majority, and Acacia was listed as conserved with A. penninervis as the
> conserved type in the Vienna Code.
>
> Since Vienna, opponents of the decision taken at that meeting have
> raised a number of objections, principally to the process followed in
> Vienna rather than against the original proposal. In particular, they
> have argued that the requirement at the meeting for a 60% supermajority
> vote to reject the General Committee's report was unacceptable and an
> example of "minority rule". They have also argued a number of
> nomenclatural matters regarding the applicability of various Code
> articles in this case. See Moore et al. (2010) for further reading.
>
> Supporters of the Vienna process, including people who voted both for
> and against the issue at that meeting, have argued that the process was
> proper and that the decision should stand. They have pointed out that
> the two specialist Committees appointed by IAPT to consider such
> proposals both approved and recommended the proposal, and have argued
> that the Nomenclature Section meeting should not be able to overturn
> their recommendations with a simple majority. McNeill&  Turland (2010)
> recommended that the correct way forward for those objecting to the
> Vienna outcome would be to submit a new proposal for the conservation of
> Acacia for consideration at Melbourne IBC. However, this recommendation
> has not been taken up and the scene is now set for a robust debate in
> Melbourne.
>
> A more detailed synopsis of the above matters is provided in Thiele et
> al. (2011).
>
> 3. Why the Melbourne vote matters
>
> The challenge to the Vienna vote is a challenge to an established
> process that has until now worked well. Both Committees were convinced
> largely by the sheer weight-of-numbers argument in the original
> proposal: if rejected,>1000 species would need to be renamed; if
> accepted, only c. 160 species would need to be renamed (the remaining
> species in Acacia s.l. need to be renamed anyway). The Committees
> considered the matter very carefully, calling for submissions and
> weighing all arguments both for and against, exactly what they were
> established to do. That both decided in favour of the proposal indicates
> that it was properly conceived, well-supported and was, they felt, in
> the best interests of global nomenclature.
>
> However, there are also larger issues at stake here. An important
> contention of those seeking to overturn the Vienna decision is that
> procedures adopted by the 2005 Nomenclature Session meeting were deeply
> flawed. In particular, they object to the requirement for a
> supermajority (60%) to reject the General Committee report; they have
> proposed instead that Melbourne and subsequent Congresses should require
> a supermajority to accept a General Committee report (a reversal of the
> Vienna process) and that the Code should be amended to mandate this. I
> regard that this is a dangerous idea for several reasons:
>
> (1). It would create a perverse imbalance between proposals to amend the
> Code and proposals to conserve or reject names. Effectively, proposals
> such as that on Acacia must pass two steep hurdles before reaching the
> Nomenclature Session. Requiring a further supermajority to accept a
> Committee report adds a third hurdle. By comparison, proposals to amend
> the Code itself face only a single hurdle (the Nomenclature Session vote
> itself). This would be a perverse outcome, given that proposals to amend
> the Code are often much more important than proposals to conserve or
> reject names.
>
> (2). It changes the intent of the Code on a matter that has been agreed
> for the last half-century. The Code clearly devolves some responsibility
> for deciding proposals on conservation and rejection to the Committees.
> It recommends that authors should follow existing usage of names until
> the General Committee reports (Recommendation 14A.1), then should
> commence using the name as approved by the General Committee "subject to
> the decision of a later International Botanical Congress" (Art. 14.14).
> This clearly assumes that the Congress is very likely to endorse the
> Committees' recommendations. If the intent of the Code were that the
> Congress has all the power over such proposals and the Committees are of
> little importance, it would require authors to follow existing usage
> until the Congress itself mandates the change and not before. Hence, the
> proposal to overturn the Vienna process is a proposal to change the
> clear intent of the Code.
>
> (3). It will create nomenclatural uncertainty and confusion. The Code
> seeks to create stability and to reduce uncertainty in these matters,
> especially in the years between Congresses. If the three-hurdle system
> is introduced, it will become much easier for disenchanted and vocal
> groups to overturn Committees' recommendations at Nomenclature Session
> meetings, creating great uncertainty for the (up to 6 years) between a
> General Committee decision and the following Congress.
>
> There is a danger that, in order to get the desired result on Acacia,
> some at the Congress will seek to establish a process and perhaps to
> amend the Code in a way that is deleterious for nomenclature. I believe
> that the nomenclatural process we have and which worked well in Vienna,
> should be supported against these moves.
>
> 4. What you can do about it
>
> Votes at the Nomenclature Section may be cast by registered delegates
> and by institutions represented by registered delegates. Delegates may
> also carry to the meeting and cast proxy votes from recognized
> institutions that have been assigned votes. If your institution is not
> able to send any delegates to the Melbourne Nomenclature Section and if
> you would like to send a proxy vote, in order to have your say on this
> issue, there are two main alternatives. You may contact a colleague who
> will be there and assign your proxy vote to them (individual delegates
> may carry up to 15 votes including their own). If you prefer, please
> feel free to respond to this email, and I can arrange for a carrier for
> your proxy vote. Proxies provided for this purpose would be deployed
> only for those votes directly relevant to the Acacia issue.
>
> Note that you will need to provide anyone carrying your proxy vote with
> either a statement on your institution's letterhead to that effect, or
> the completed proxy notification form that each herbarium should have
> received, notifying them of their voting entitlement.
>
> Again, if you are convinced after reading this that the issue is
> important and wish to assign your proxy votes, please act without delay.
>
> 5. Further reading
>
> If you would like to read further on this issue, I suggest the following
> key papers:
>
> Orchard&  Maslin (2003) - the original proposal to conserve Acacia with
> an Australian type
> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2003/00000052/00000002/ar
> t00031
>
> Brummitt (2004) - report of the Permanent Nomenclature Committee
> regarding the proposal
> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2004/00000053/00000003/ar
> t00022
>
> Moore et al (2010) - the principal paper for the case against the Vienna
> decision
> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2010/00000059/00000004/ar
> t00017
>
> Thiele et al (2011) - the principal paper for the case supporting the
> Vienna decision
> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2011/00000060/00000001/ar
> t00017
>
> McNeil&  Turland (2010) - paper from the Nomenclature Bureau of the
> Vienna meeting supporting its process
> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2010/00000059/00000002/ar
> t00026
>
>
>
> This email, together with any attachments, is intended for the addressee
> only. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
> If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the
> sender, delete the email and attachments from your system and destroy
> any copies you may have taken of the email and its attachments.
> Duplication or further distribution by hardcopy, by electronic means or
> verbally is not permitted without permission.
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here This
> email, together with any attachments, is intended for the addressee
> only. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
> If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the
> sender, delete the email and attachments from your system and destroy
> any copies you may have taken of the email and its attachments.
> Duplication or further distribution by hardcopy, by electronic means or
> verbally is not permitted without permission.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> ************************************************************************
> The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with
> it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended
> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any
> distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in
> it is prohibited.
>
> Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the
> transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail
> or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised
> to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.
>
> If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by
> e-mail at cabi at cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then
> delete the e-mail and any copies of it.
>
> CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government
> under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071.
>
> ************************************************************************
> **
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here This
> email, together with any attachments, is intended for the addressee
> only. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
> If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the
> sender, delete the email and attachments from your system and destroy
> any copies you may have taken of the email and its attachments.
> Duplication or further distribution by hardcopy, by electronic means or
> verbally is not permitted without permission.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

-- 
Pierre DELEPORTE
UMR 6552 EthoS
Université Rennes 1, CNRS
Station Biologique
35380 Paimpont
tél (+33) 02 99 61 81 63
fax (+33) 02 99 61 81 88