Acacia, the 2011 Nomenclature Section in Melbourne, and beyond

MOORE, G; GIDEON F. SMITH; FIGUEIREDO,G. F.; DEMISSEW, S.; SCHRIRE, B.; RICO, L.; VAN WYK, B.; ALFORD, A.; ALI, I.; AMEKA,G.K.; BANDYOPADHYAY, S.; BARKER, N.; BRUNEAU, A.; CHANDRA, V.; CHIANG,F.; CRISP, M.; FORTUNATO, R.H.

TAXON

INT ASSOC PLANT TAXONOMY

Lugar: Vienna; Año: 2010 p. 1188 - 1195

0040-0262

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 III (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 theAcacia 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 III (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 theAcacia Mill. with a conserved type in Appendix III (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 theWhile 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 theAcacia—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—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 theAcacia 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 theVienna 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.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.