L Committee could look at it and didn’t feel further
L Committee could appear at it and didn’t feel further action was needed. He thanked Wieringa for drawing it to their consideration. Nicolson moved to a vote on referring it towards the Editorial Committee. [Here the record reverts for the actual sequence of events.]Christina Flann et al. PhytoKeys 45: 4 (205)Post 45 Prop. A (35 : 00 : 6 : 0). McNeill introduced Art. 45 Prop. A as yet another one that stemmed from abandoning the Latin requirement and putting in one more requirement for the valid publication of a new taxon. This was the addition in the phrase nov e.g.: gen. nov spec. nov comb. nov the term novum or the abbreviation of it to be necessary on or soon after Jan 2007 for the valid publication of a brand new taxon. He felt it might be thought of on its personal merits, pretty independent of the Latin matter, which had been rejected. As an indexer Gandhi preferred such flagging. He remembered an example about 6 years ago when a brand new species was published without the need of any flagging and then a really brief Latin diagnosis involving two or 3 characters. It BAY 41-2272 web pubmed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26740317 had looked as though the author was deliberately not mentioning that it was a new species and it was only accidentally that they noted that it seriously was a new species. He felt it would be valuable if such flagging was completed. Watson believed it was very good to hear what the IPNI men and women had to say about it but he believed, from nonindexer’s pointofview, but sort of a databaser’s pointofview it was extremely helpful to have these issues in. He thought they had been in as a Recommendation anyway but, going by means of he couldn’t uncover them. So he wondered whether or not it was much better to put them inside the Code as a Recommendation as opposed to a rule. Kolterman noted that it stated the term novum or an equivalent, the 3 examples offered had been abbreviations of your Latin, but, in the absence of a statement that it had to be in Latin he assumed it may be an equivalent in any contemporary language as well McNeill agreed that was appropriate as it stood at the moment. Challis agreed with Watson’s comments. They believed there already was a Recommendation but couldn’t locate it. She did not want it to become required for valid publication but believed it could be valuable as Recommendation. McNeill asked if she proposed that it be accepted as a Recommendation [She did and that was seconded.] Bhattacharya believed that there was an orthographic error, as there ought to be a complete stop between “comb” and “nov.” It need to be “comb. nov.”. McNeill noted that the amendment was to have the proposed wording treated as a Recommendation as opposed to an Report. He suggested that the Section could vote on that. Funk proposed that “or an equivalent” be omitted. McNeill pointed out that if it was a Recommendation, it didn’t matter unless somebody wanted to propose that it be the equivalent or an abbreviation. He clarified that that was an amendment to the amendment. [That was seconded.] Watson added that “must” need to also be changed to “should”. McNeill assured the Section that that could be done editorially as part of a Recommendation. He explained that the existing wording was that of a rule and there was an amendment to make it Recommendation so the Editorial Committee would make the essential grammatical modifications. There was the other much more distinct amendment toReport on botanical nomenclature Vienna 2005: Art.insist that it be in Latin. He believed it would basically be novum or an abbreviation, in lieu of an equivalent. P. Hoffmann pointed out that it could be nova or novus whi.
