The Experts below are selected from a list of 2667 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Gideon F. Smith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
who amends the international code of Botanical Nomenclature a response to applequist al 2010
Taxon, 2011Co-Authors: Gideon F. Smith, Estrela Figueiredo, Gerry MooreAbstract: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.
-
Who amends the international code of Botanical Nomenclature? A response to Applequist & al. (2010)
TAXON, 2011Co-Authors: Gideon F. Smith, Estrela Figueiredo, Gerry MooreAbstract: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.
-
Latin diagnoses: An unnecessary impediment: A response to Jørgensen
TAXON, 2010Co-Authors: Estrela Figueiredo, Gerry Moore, Gideon F. SmithAbstract:We conclude that the arguments put forward by Jorgensen in his response to our recent proposal to abandon Botanical Latin as the mandatory language in which to provide a description or diagnosis when a new species is described, in fact serve to confirm that this requirement must now be removed from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
-
Who amends the International code of Botanical Nomenclature
TAXON, 2010Co-Authors: Gideon F. Smith, Estrela Figueiredo, Gerry MooreAbstract:The tropical, subtropical and some temperate regions of the world are home to large components of the known global flora. However, the herbaria in these countries, often classified as so-called emerging economies, hold a fraction of the votes that influence and decide proposals to amend the International code of Botanical Nomenclature. We argue that the allocation of votes to herbaria should more closely reflect the richness of the plant diversity of the country in which the herbarium is situated, as well as the size of the population using the names associated with the flora. Globally, in every single sphere of life and human endeavour, minority rule is not only frowned upon, it is rejected, often with contempt. There is no reason why, in the second decade of the 21st century, decision-making in plant Nomenclature should be affected by a minority of institutions from countries with some of the world's most depauperate floras. The way in which some Nomenclature committees, and the Nomenclature Section itself, have advocated a particular point of view on the typification of the genus name Acacia Mill. at the International Botanical Congress held in Vienna in 2005 has indicated just how far developing nations and continents have been left behind in the plant Nomenclature debate. The IAPT could now proactively initiate a debate and process that will ultimately ensure a better representation for neglected herbaria, and therefore the countries in which they are situated, that lack a voice in plant nomenclatural matters.
-
refining and improving the international code of Botanical Nomenclature news views
South African Journal of Science, 2006Co-Authors: Gideon F. Smith, John Mcneill, Nicholas J TurlandAbstract:We report on some of the more signifcant issues discussed and voted on at the Nomenclature Section meeting of the XVIIth International Botanical Congress held in Vienna from 12 to 16 July 2005.
Gerry Moore - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
who amends the international code of Botanical Nomenclature a response to applequist al 2010
Taxon, 2011Co-Authors: Gideon F. Smith, Estrela Figueiredo, Gerry MooreAbstract: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.
-
Who amends the international code of Botanical Nomenclature? A response to Applequist & al. (2010)
TAXON, 2011Co-Authors: Gideon F. Smith, Estrela Figueiredo, Gerry MooreAbstract: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.
-
Latin diagnoses: An unnecessary impediment: A response to Jørgensen
TAXON, 2010Co-Authors: Estrela Figueiredo, Gerry Moore, Gideon F. SmithAbstract:We conclude that the arguments put forward by Jorgensen in his response to our recent proposal to abandon Botanical Latin as the mandatory language in which to provide a description or diagnosis when a new species is described, in fact serve to confirm that this requirement must now be removed from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
-
Who amends the International code of Botanical Nomenclature
TAXON, 2010Co-Authors: Gideon F. Smith, Estrela Figueiredo, Gerry MooreAbstract:The tropical, subtropical and some temperate regions of the world are home to large components of the known global flora. However, the herbaria in these countries, often classified as so-called emerging economies, hold a fraction of the votes that influence and decide proposals to amend the International code of Botanical Nomenclature. We argue that the allocation of votes to herbaria should more closely reflect the richness of the plant diversity of the country in which the herbarium is situated, as well as the size of the population using the names associated with the flora. Globally, in every single sphere of life and human endeavour, minority rule is not only frowned upon, it is rejected, often with contempt. There is no reason why, in the second decade of the 21st century, decision-making in plant Nomenclature should be affected by a minority of institutions from countries with some of the world's most depauperate floras. The way in which some Nomenclature committees, and the Nomenclature Section itself, have advocated a particular point of view on the typification of the genus name Acacia Mill. at the International Botanical Congress held in Vienna in 2005 has indicated just how far developing nations and continents have been left behind in the plant Nomenclature debate. The IAPT could now proactively initiate a debate and process that will ultimately ensure a better representation for neglected herbaria, and therefore the countries in which they are situated, that lack a voice in plant nomenclatural matters.
David L. Hawksworth - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Draft Biocode: Prospective International Rules For The Scientific Names Of Organisms
The Bulletin of zoological nomenclature., 1996Co-Authors: Werner Greuter, Alessandro Minelli, David L. Hawksworth, J. Mcneill, M. A. Mayo, P. H. A. Sneath, Brian J. Tindall, R. P. Trehane, Philip K. TubbsAbstract:The typographical layout of the present Draft conforms to that of the International code of Botanical Nomenclature (Tokyo Code) (Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 131. 1994, abbreviated ICBN hereafter) and therefore differs from the usual Taxon style, and also from that of the current editions of the International code of zoological Nomenclature (Ride & al., London, 1985: the ICZN) and of the International code of Nomenclature of bacteria (Lapage & al., Washington, 1992: the BC). The Draft does not yet include Recommendations, Notes, or Examples. For further relevant explanations, botanists may find it useful to refer to the "Introductory comments" by Greuter & Nicolson (in Taxon 45: 343-348. 1996), a document initially prepared for the benefit of members of the General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature, now published in a slightly updated form. A set of explanatory Notes addressed to all biologists interested in nomenclatural matters is in preparation and expected to be ready for distribution at a half-day symposium on The New BioNomenclature at the Fifth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB V) in Budapest, 17-24 August 1996 (see Hawksworth in Taxon 44: 447-456. 1995). To help all interested biologists who wish to compare the proposed new rules with the corresponding entries in the current Codes (BC, ICBN, ICZN), cross-references
-
Synopsis of Proposals on Botanical Nomenclature - Vienna 2005. A Review of the Proposals concerning the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature Submitted to the XVII International Botanical Congress
Taxon, 1993Co-Authors: Werner Greuter, David L. HawksworthAbstract:Each personal member of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy is entitled to participate in the Preliminary Mail Vote on Nomenclature proposals submitted to the XVIII International Botanical Congress, as stated in Division III of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006). Authors of proposals to amend the Code and members of the Permanent Nomenclature Committees (described in Div. III.2) are also entitled to participate, but no institutional votes are allowed. A voting form is inserted in this issue of Taxon and, if lost, available from www .iapt-taxon.org (sub Nomenclature). The voting forms (ballots) should be returned to the IAPT Office, Institute of Botany, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, A-1030, Vienna, Austria, by 31 May 2011, so that they may be included in the tabulation to be made available to members of the Nomenclature Section of the Congress. The sessions of the Nomenclature Section, which will take definitive action on proposals, will be held in the Copland Theatre, Economics and Commerce Building 148, University of Melbourne (Parkville campus), Melbourne, Australia, from Monday, 18 July 2011 (09:00 hours) to Friday, 22 July 2011 (see http://www.ibc2011.com/ NomenclatureSection.htm). Each person registered for at least one full day of the Congress is entitled to enrol as a member of the Nomenclature Section. Registration for the Congress should be done in advance (see http://www .ibc2011.com/Registration.htm); the confirmation received will be the evidence of eligibility for registration for the Nomenclature Section, which will start during a welcoming reception on Sunday, 17 July, at 16:00 hours at The School of Botany Building 122 on the Parkville campus; Nomenclature Section registration will continue on Monday, 18 July at 08:00 hours at the Copland Theatre. Each member of the Nomenclature Section is entitled to one personal vote in the sessions. Personal votes can neither be transferred nor accumulated; one person never receives more than one personal vote. A member of the Nomenclature Section may be the official delegate of one or more institutions, thereby carrying their votes, but no one person is allowed more than 15 votes (including his or her personal vote). Official delegates are required to submit their credentials and to collect their voting cards when registering for the Nomenclature Section. Institutions are being advised of their allocation of votes in March 2011, in accordance with Division III of the Code. INTRODUCTION
Michael J Balick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Section 1. Botanical Nomenclature and Glossary of Botanical Terms
Handbook of Poisonous and Injurious Plants, 2020Co-Authors: Lewis S. Nelson, Michael J BalickAbstract:Before the work of Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the botanist who established the binomial system of plant Nomenclature, a plant sometimes had a name that consisted of many descriptive words. Linnaeus helped to standardize Botanical Nomenclature by establishing a genus and species name for each plant, followed by its designator. A clinical report involving a plant must always include the plant’s Botanical (binomial) name, which consists of both the genus and the species, for example, Duranta repens. By convention, both are italicized or underlined. Duranta is the name of the genus and the first letter is always capitalized. A genus (the plural of which is genera) may be composed of a single species or several hundred. The second part of the binomial, in this case repens, is the particular species within the genus, and it is always in lowercase letters. It is important to include the name of the person (often abbreviated) who named the particular species, as part of the scientific name, to minimize confusion between similar or related plant species. For example, in the case above, the complete name, which would allow the most precise identification, is Duranta repens L.; L. is the accepted abbreviation for Carolus Linnaeus.
-
does the name really matter the importance of Botanical Nomenclature and plant taxonomy in biomedical research
Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 2014Co-Authors: Bradley C Bennett, Michael J BalickAbstract:Abstract Ethnopharmacological relevance Medical research on plant-derived compounds requires a breadth of expertise from field to laboratory and clinical skills. Too often basic Botanical skills are evidently lacking, especially with respect to plant taxonomy and Botanical Nomenclature. Binomial and familial names, synonyms and author citations are often misconstrued. The correct Botanical name, linked to a vouchered specimen, is the sine qua non of phytomedical research. Without the unique identifier of a proper binomial, research cannot accurately be linked to the existing literature. Perhaps more significant, is the ambiguity of species determinations that ensues of from poor taxonomic practices. This uncertainty, not surprisingly, obstructs reproducibility of results—the cornerstone of science. Materials and methods Based on our combined six decades of experience with medicinal plants, we discuss the problems of inaccurate taxonomy and Botanical Nomenclature in biomedical research. This problems appear all too frequently in manuscripts and grant applications that we review and they extend to the published literature. We also review the literature on the importance of taxonomy in other disciplines that relate to medicinal plant research. Results and discussion In most cases, questions regarding orthography, synonymy, author citations, and current family designations of most plant binomials can be resolved using widely-available online databases and other electronic resources. Some complex problems require consultation with a professional plant taxonomist, which also is important for accurate identification of voucher specimens. Researchers should provide the currently accepted binomial and complete author citation, provide relevant synonyms, and employ the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group III family name. Taxonomy is a vital adjunct not only to plant-medicine research but to virtually every field of science. Conclusions Medicinal plant researchers can increase the precision and utility of their investigations by following sound practices with respect to Botanical Nomenclature. Correct spellings, accepted binomials, author citations, synonyms, and current family designations can readily be found on reliable online databases. When questions arise, researcher should consult plant taxonomists.
Estrela Figueiredo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
who amends the international code of Botanical Nomenclature a response to applequist al 2010
Taxon, 2011Co-Authors: Gideon F. Smith, Estrela Figueiredo, Gerry MooreAbstract: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.
-
Who amends the international code of Botanical Nomenclature? A response to Applequist & al. (2010)
TAXON, 2011Co-Authors: Gideon F. Smith, Estrela Figueiredo, Gerry MooreAbstract: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.
-
Latin diagnoses: An unnecessary impediment: A response to Jørgensen
TAXON, 2010Co-Authors: Estrela Figueiredo, Gerry Moore, Gideon F. SmithAbstract:We conclude that the arguments put forward by Jorgensen in his response to our recent proposal to abandon Botanical Latin as the mandatory language in which to provide a description or diagnosis when a new species is described, in fact serve to confirm that this requirement must now be removed from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
-
Who amends the International code of Botanical Nomenclature
TAXON, 2010Co-Authors: Gideon F. Smith, Estrela Figueiredo, Gerry MooreAbstract:The tropical, subtropical and some temperate regions of the world are home to large components of the known global flora. However, the herbaria in these countries, often classified as so-called emerging economies, hold a fraction of the votes that influence and decide proposals to amend the International code of Botanical Nomenclature. We argue that the allocation of votes to herbaria should more closely reflect the richness of the plant diversity of the country in which the herbarium is situated, as well as the size of the population using the names associated with the flora. Globally, in every single sphere of life and human endeavour, minority rule is not only frowned upon, it is rejected, often with contempt. There is no reason why, in the second decade of the 21st century, decision-making in plant Nomenclature should be affected by a minority of institutions from countries with some of the world's most depauperate floras. The way in which some Nomenclature committees, and the Nomenclature Section itself, have advocated a particular point of view on the typification of the genus name Acacia Mill. at the International Botanical Congress held in Vienna in 2005 has indicated just how far developing nations and continents have been left behind in the plant Nomenclature debate. The IAPT could now proactively initiate a debate and process that will ultimately ensure a better representation for neglected herbaria, and therefore the countries in which they are situated, that lack a voice in plant nomenclatural matters.