Who amends the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature? A response to Applequist & al. (2010)
Abstract:We maintain that a review of the way in which votes that can be cast to influence the amendment of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) are allocated is overdue. Although there will no doubt be resistance to proposed changes that may emanate from such a review, a more representative system of vote allocation to herbaria, among other things, will considerably enhance the credibility and robustness of the voting system. A rebuttal addressing two criteria we suggest as examples of what could be used as part of a review to make the voting system more representative was recently published by Applequist & al. It is regrettable that in the face of unambiguous statistics that show the inadequacy of the current ICBN amendment voting system, the need for change is not embraced with due urgency. A fear of power sharing and decentralization may well be the root cause.
Document Type: Research Article
Affiliations: 1: H.G.W.J. Schweickerdt Herbarium, Department of Plant Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002 South Africa;, Email: email@example.com 2: Brooklyn Botanic Garden, 1000 Washington Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11225, U.S.A.
Publication date: February 1, 2011
Impact Factor (2014): 3.3
Taxon electronic back issues (1950-2001) have been released in 2005
Submission of manuscripts: www.editorialmanager.com/taxon
- Information for Authors
- Subscribe to this Title
- Membership Information
- Information for Advertisers
- Regnum Vegetabile and Taxonomic Literature online
- Taxon electronic back issues (1950-2001) hosted by JSTOR
- Free access for IAPT members: please login at
- ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites