TAXON - Home | Subscription | Contents | Index
This article was published in Taxon 47: 899-904. 1998.
(88-95) Proposals to implement mandatory registration of new names
Liv Borgen1, Werner Greuter2, David L. Hawksworth3, Dan H. Nicolson4 & Brigitte Zimmer2, IAPT Executive Committee
The Nomenclature Section at the Tokyo Congress decided by a large majority, on a show of hands, to embody the principle of mandatory registration of future new names in the Code, while at the same time postponing the originally proposed starting date (1995) until after the next International Botanical Congress. The details of the discussion were minuted and can be looked up in the published proceedings of the Section meetings (see Englera 14: 138-156, 168-169. 1994). The principle of registration was in no way disputed, but some concern was expressed at the still unknown details of the mechanism by which it was to be implemented. The Section therefore wisely decided that confirmation (at a qualified majority) by the next Congress would be required before registration could become mandatory.
By this decision, the Section gave to the IAPT the mandate, accepted by its Officers, to set up a registration mechanism on a trial basis. Greuter (in Englera 14: 149) outlined some of the basic aspects that would have to be taken care of. Some main points from his statement of intent (which raised no contradiction or controversy) are quoted here for convenience: "The person submitting the name for registration was unimportant: it could be the secretary or the widow of a deceased botanist, or the publisher of the journal. Hopefully the latter would become the rule... Authors would have the option of publishing either in a journal taking care of the registration procedure or in a perhaps more parochial or less botanical journal ... when registration would be the author’s responsibility... There would be many [registration] offices throughout the world... On average, postal delays in developing countries would not be longer than in, e.g., the United States... The IAPT felt confident that the system could be made to work. The present proposals were perhaps undetailed, but not vague. In six years’ time, there would be a possibility..., based on the gained experience, to add details of implementation."
After careful preparations, the
IAPT-sponsored trial registration phase was launched in December
1997 and is planned to last two full years (or up to such date as
the next Congress may decide as the starting point for mandatory
registration). So far, no serious technical problems were
encountered that would justify scepticism as to the functionality
of registration. The response to IAPT’s request for
collaboration was very satisfactory. Details have been reported
elsewhere and need not be repeated here (see Taxon 46: 811-814.
1997; 47: 497-502. 1998). Information on the trial phase has been
published in several journals and newsletters in addition to Taxon.
The number of registration offices who have agreed to participate
as by 1 October 1998 is 35, and 180 journals have already
asked for and been granted accredited status for registration
purposes. Last but not least, at the central registration office
set up in Berlin 4286 newly published names were keyed in,
complete with authorship, type, and other nomenclatural
attributes, a figure that does not
include the fungal names that are being processed at the CAB
International BioScience UK Centre (integrating the International
Mycological Institute, IMI, in Egham). At the beginning of June
the registered names were placed on the World Wide Web in the
form of a searchable database easily accessed through the
official IAPT Web site (http://www.bgbm.org/IAPT).
Please look into the registration pages included there, and test
the system. Newly published names can now easily be accessed on
the Web, days after they have come to the notice of the
registration centre.
What follows is an interim report by the IAPT Executive Committee on the trial phase and on the conclusions one can presently draw as to the feasibility and fundability of plant name registration. By the time of the next Congress, fuller data will be known and made available.
The cost of registration incurred by IAPT (salaries, contracts, and software design) will be less than US$65,000 for the first year. Data entry on average takes 6 minutes per name and requires a half-time clerical staff position. Scientific supervision, checking, and administrative work keeps one half-time scientist busy. If registration becomes a permanent feature, these costs will be reduced to less than half. The present scheme involves duplication of labour as far as vascular plants are concerned, which are being indexed separately and in parallel by the Plant Names Project (PNP) based at Kew, Harvard, and Canberra. Such duplication, while useful for the purpose of comparison during the trial stage, will not be maintained if and when registration becomes mandatory. Kew and Harvard have clearly indicated that they will be full partners in registration if it is approved at the Congress. Their share can then be done at no cost beyond what is presently spent on indexing, and registration may even save them money. IAPT will thus have to take care only of names in those groups for which no fully functional and permanent indexing system is presently in place: bryophytes, algae, and non-fungal fossils. Negotiations with other institutional partners are under way to take care of some or all of these, but even if they should fail, IAPT would be able to run registration for those groups on its own, for an unlimited period of time.
If the major funding input into registration is and will continue to be by the centres keying in and administering the data, the contribution of registration offices should not therefore be minimised. Their share of the total cost is being so widely spread that all institutions so far approached, when responding, have indicated that they can bear these costs on their own. We believe that the co-operation of regional or national offices spread all over the world can contribute in an essential way to make registration universally known and accepted.
Finally, the question of availability of the registration data must be mentioned. We are glad to say that both IAPT and the PNP are firmly committed to the principle of free availability of the data via the Internet. In order for CABI BioScience to espouse this position, some financial guarantee against losses in hard copy sales will have to be found, an aspect that is currently being negotiated. Hard copy output is secured for flowering plants and fungi, and feasible for other groups. Release of all data in a consolidated and periodically updated, searchable electronic format (on CD-ROM disks or whatever devices may supplant them in the future) is also being envisaged, but will have to be handled in such a way as not to threaten the commercial viability of the hard-copy registers.
We are cognisant of the fact that there has recently been a strong if perhaps partly irrational surge against the registration principle. The IAPT’s role in this has been that of a honest broker, following a clear mandate democratically decided at the last Congress. The last Nomenclature Section saw merits in the registration principle that the next Section may fail to see. This is not the place, however, to discuss the merits or otherwise of that principle. What we feel may be helpful is to address some misconceptions that have apparently emerged.
Risk of censorship? – What is already in the rules at present makes it evident that registration is neutral and cannot in any event be censorial. Everyone may submit a name in printed form for registration, and registered it will be. By registration alone a name becomes neither valid nor legitimate, nor will its validity or legitimacy (let alone its taxonomic merits) be judged by those registering it. However, the system that is presently operating is so programmed that it generates "caveats" whenever elements needed for valid publication appear to be lacking, such as "type not indicated" for the name of a new taxon; or for a name of a fossil, "no Latin or English diagnosis or reference to such"; or for an algal name, "illustration or reference to illustration missing". Other peculiarities, e.g. affecting legitimacy, may be keyed in individually as "notes". From there, the users, being warned by such flags, will be able to judge on their own.
Little gain with respect to current indexes? – As a phanerogamist or mycologist one may argue this point either way, but think of bryologists, phycologists, and palaeobotanists, who have no regularly produced index to go on. We believe that, even though they use to be weakly represented at the Nomenclature Section meetings, their needs must also be taken into consideration. Note that the Committee for Fossil Plants, prior to the last Congress, voted 11 : 2 for the registration proposal (the original proposal, which would have made registration mandatory as from 1995).
Bureaucracy? – The apparatus required for registration is probably less and certainly not larger that what is needed for indexing. Perhaps some botanists dislike filling out forms and consider this as a bureaucratic imposition, but then the use of apposite forms is not mandated by provisions in the Code. Using such forms will ease the work and will ensure that the person submitting will have a dated acknowledgement of receipt. But simply sending in the printed matter with colour markings or whatever to highlight the names to be registered, with or without a covering letter, will do the job as well. Also, some may feel that the net of national registration offices that is being set up is too tightly woven, at least in Europe. This can easily be altered, but we think that the initiative for bundling the responsibilities for several countries in one office must come from the practising botanists, not from the IAPT.
Insufficient details known? – Details of registration procedures could not be usefully devised and proposed before trial registration was functioning and some feedback had been received. Only now is it possible to make some concrete suggestions, which is the purpose of the set of proposals detailed below. We do not believe that over-regulation at this stage is appropriate, and feel that points not covered here may well be left for the future, if and when the need for them becomes apparent.
In summary, we would now urge all concerned to have a dispassionate look at what is being proposed and form their own opinion, both on the principle itself and on the additional items. Registration is too serious a matter for rash and ill-considered decisions to be taken in either sense.
(88) In Art. 32.1, last sentence, delete the clause "subject to the approval of the XVI IBC,".
This is the backbone proposal of the entire set. By accepting it, the Section would make registration a mandatory requirement for valid publication of new names from a date that is presently stated as 1 Jan 2000, but is of course open to reconsideration if the Section, in view of the information available at the time of the Congress, feels that postponement is desirable. Rejection of the proposal would leave the registration provisions, as presently spelled out, a toothless option available for future use.
(89) Add a footnote to the end of Art. 32.1:
"1 The General Committee (Div. III.2(1)) has power to set aside the registration requirement, subject to ratification by the next subsequent International Botanical Congress, if the registration mechanism, or essential parts thereof, should cease to function."
This lifeboat clause is offered as a safety guarantee, to comfort those who, while favouring registration in principle, fear a risk of failure and the earnest consequences this would have for nomenclature as a whole. While we do not share those fears at present, we agree that the concern expressed is legitimate. This would not be the first lifeboat clause in the Code, to cover risks that lie beyond the sphere of influence of the Nomenclature Section (the other example being the possibility that the International Botanical Congresses might be discontinued: see footnote to Div. III).
(90) Add a Note after Art. 32.2:
"Note 0. A list of registering offices is maintained and made available by the International Association for Plant Taxonomy."
A clarification that, we feel, is useful and necessary. If registration is mandatory, botanists must know exactly where they can obtain the updated information on whom they are to approach.
(91) Add a paragraph after Art. 32.2:
"32.2bis. The date of registration is the date on which the registration submission is received at a registering office. It does not depend on the date on which registration of a given name is made publicly known."
We are aware of the fact that the date issue has given and continues to give rise to controversy. The main concern voiced is that all authors must be placed on equal footing, and none privileged over the others by shorter distances or more efficient mail services. This is why a widespread and dense net of registration offices is being set up for dating purposes. The second point raised was the discomfort of having dual dates. When it is perceived that the registration date can be verified in no time by a couple of mouse-clicks as soon as the registered name is placed on the Internet (which presently takes less than a fortnight on average), whereas the exact date of effective publication (even when printed in the publication and thought to be reliable) may be more tedious to establish, this apparent discomfort may well turn out to be a real benefit.
The reasons why we give preference to the dating provision as originally proposed (Prop. 52 in Taxon 40: 683. 1991) are simplicity, practicality and perceived user-friendliness. The proposal makes explicit what the Code would rule by inference even without such a provision, via Art. 45.1. It also will provide a precise and objectively established date for all future names. Even so, the dating solution here proposed is not a mandatory core element of registration, and other options can be envisaged.
In the discussion at Yokohama, Funk foreshadowed an alternative approach: to accept the date of effective publication but restrict the registration act to a time window of 6-12 months (see Englera 14: 154). The problem with this is that not all publications bear an exact date, and if they do, it is not always reliable. There would also need to be provision for what happens to names submitted for registration once the window is closed: would they have to be published anew (presumably a rather wasteful option), or would they be registered with the registration submission date?
A third possibility that comes to mind, not so far discussed, would be to accept the date as printed when it is given to the day, provided that registration is effected within a month (or fortnight); and otherwise take the submission date. This would preclude the legalisation of abusive dating and would assign exact dates to every name. It would do so at the cost of some additional (but perhaps tolerable) complexity and of a slight disadvantage to publications not bearing an explicit date.
(92) In Art. 32.2, after "printed matter that includes the protologue(s)," add: "in duplicate".
One of the requirements of effective publication is that printed matter be distributed (Art. 29). This presupposes the existence of at least two identical copies. One of the concerns raised during the registration debate at Yokohama (Brummitt in Englera 14: 141 & 145) was that for registration to be effected proof must be given that at least two copies exist. This is also the minimum required to compensate the risk of postal losses: one copy must always remain deposited in the registration office to which the submission was made.
It would be ideal if three or four copies could be asked for to work on. This would, in particular, enable the establishment of a central repository for all printed matter containing protologues. Reactions so far received from publishers, those of commercially produced journals in particular, show that this will not be acceptable to all. Also, as decentralised databases are now becoming widely accepted in practice, the need for a single central deposit is no longer so evident.
There is the other side of the coin, the cost factor. To do justice to this latter aspect, the following proposal may be helpful.
(93) Add a sentence at the end of Art. 32.2, and an example:
"When effective publication (Art. 29-31) is not in doubt, photocopies are acceptable in place of the original printed matter.
"Ex. 1. The effective publication of journals or books issued by a recognised commercial or institutional publisher is taken for granted."
Again at Yokohama, there was some concern as to the cost of submitting publications in original for registration purposes. This problem might arise with names published in expensive books, e.g. revisions with coloured artwork illustrations, or with journals that only rarely include items relevant to plant taxonomy. While there may be merit in discouraging authors to publish in such works or journals, this must not happen at the expense of individual freedom of choice.
Demoulin (in Englera 14: 143, 151), for this very reason, made a strong plea for allowing submission by photocopy. While for grey literature of any kind and potential one-off "publications" this would hardly be acceptable in view of Brummitt’s concern mentioned above, the situation is hardly the same when regularly produced books and journals are considered. It is hoped that the above proposal may take care of both Demoulin’s and Brummitt’s apparently conflicting demands.
The suggested example (not necessarily intended as a "voted example") should explain what is meant by the phrase "when effective publication is not in doubt". If the proposal is accepted, the Editorial Committee will be empowered, if necessary, to rephrase it so as to take into account comments made during the Session.
(94) Add a second Note after Art. 32.2, and a sentence at the end of Art. 46.2:
"[32.] Note 0bis. Registration is incumbent upon the authors of new names, but may also be undertaken by a third party (e.g. the publisher, or any other person) in their stead (see also Art. 46.2).
"[46.2.] Authorship is not affected by the identity of the person submitting the name for registration (see Art. 32 Note 0bis)."
This is a clarification of what is otherwise implicit in the Code, but is obviously needed in view of divergent opinions that have been expressed on the matter. Mabberley (in Englera 14: 147) had asked what would happen if an author died while his new names were in print. Who would then be entitled to submit the name for registration? The answer is: anyone.
Also, Art. 46 now makes it clear that authorship of a name is with the person who proposed the name and wrote the validating description (or reference to it) and has nothing to do with registration. The Editorial Committee will wish to consider treating the second sentence, too, as a Note rather than part of a provision.
(95) Add a Recommendation after Rec. 32F:
"32G.1. Botanists, including those responsible for recording registered names, are encouraged to effect registration of any names that fulfil all requirements for valid publication except registration."
Such a recommendation as is proposed here would go one step further and encourage all botanists to have names registered that did not make it in the normal way to get on the list, through whatever failure. Most importantly, it would give a clear mandate to those responsible for the present indices (e.g. Index kewensis, Index of fungi), in their potential future role in registration, to take on board all such names they come naturally across in the course of their working routine. Without such a procedure we might face the awkwardness of many new names proposed with perfectly good descriptions and types being technically invalid. This at least is what happened every time the rules were tightened up, be it by introduction of the Latin requirement in 1935 or when type citation became mandatory in 1958.
Clearly, if registration is not cared for by the author of a name but left to chance discovery by the indexers, there will be an added delay, the date of registration then being the date at which a given publication is processed for indexing. In our opinion, this risk of delay will be a sufficient incentive for authors (or publishers acting on their behalf) to co-operate and have their new names registered. Once this has become the normal practice as a matter of course, this Recommendation will be largely superfluous. For the early years, however, it may have an important role to play.
1 Botanical Garden and Museum, Trondheimsveien
23B, N-0562 Oslo 5, Norway.
2 Botanischer Garten & Botanisches
Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Freie Universität, Königin-Luise-Str.
6-8, D-14195 Berlin, Germany.
3 MycoNova, 114 Finchley Lane, Hendon, London
NW4 1DG, U.K.
4 Botany Department MRC-166, National
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
DC 20560-0166, U.S.A.
IAPT - Main menu | The Association | Taxon | Nomenclature | Regnum Vegetabile | Projects
© by International Association
for Plant Taxonomy. WWW-Editor
Effective publication date: 13 November 1998