The conservation of Acacia with A. penninervis as conserved type

The suggestion that the procedure by which the Nomenclature Section of the XVII International Botanical Congress in Vienna in 2005 approved the conservation of the name Acacia with A. penninervis as conserved type was “invalid” and that as a result the conservation proposal was not approved by that Congress is demonstrated to be false. The corollary suggestion that the inclusion of Acacia as a conserved name in the Vienna Code might be questioned at the next Congress when that Code is proposed for ratification is consequently untenable and contrary to Art. 14.8 of the ICBN. An alternative procedure for those who feel that retaining A. penninervis as the type of Acacia will lead to disadvantageous nomenclatural changes is outlined. The authors acknowledge that the process for handling recommendations on conservation, especially by the Nomenclature Section, requires both clarification and improvement and they commit the Bureau of Nomenclature for the XVIII IBC to address this in co-operation with the General Committee and other interested parties.