E this occurred and that was why they had added the
E this occurred and that was why they had added the clarification. He concluded that in the event the supplementary booklet that really explained the Code was ever written, then autonyms might be explained far more totally there, due to the fact they had been one of a kind in that sense. As a last note he added that he would not drop sleep over it, regardless of which way the vote went. P. Hoffmann agreed that it should really go into Stuessy’s planned booklet for nomenclature for DNA folks, since it was taxonomic not nomenclatural and she believed the SIS3 web Section should vote it down. Nicolson asked for further comments and wondered what the title of that booklet was [Laughter.] Unknown Speaker recommended that he did not have to repeat it. [More laughter.] Nicolson believed was on the Rapporteurs’ proposal. McNeill explained that because the Rapporteurs had produced the comment, and got some votes for it, it was fair that the Section ought to see it. They weren’t promoting it vigorously, but merely saying it was an alternative for the Section to think about. He supposed that technically it was an amendment towards the proposal and they had place it forward in print and weren’t withdrawing. He added that it was basically a matter of saying that the proposal applied to all names. He noted that Moore had just spoken for the amendment by saying “yes, it does apply to all names but there’s an extremely special case for autonyms”. [Unintelligible comments off mike]. McNeill responded that the point was that publishing any name did not define a taxonomic circumscription. He felt that the point had just been created that it need not go into the Code for all names, but that it will be useful for autonyms. Demoulin recommended taking care of the dilemma presented by Moore by adding “One needs to be especially aware of this truth when dealing with autonyms” to their proposal McNeill thought the proposal needs to be left as it was and let the Section make a decision what it wanted to perform. Wieringa believed it was a very good proposal, except that it would only clarify valid publication of new names and not include autonyms where you generate a single name and at the identical time generate a second new name. He recommended rephrasing it a little bit bit to indicate expressly that autonyms have been incorporated in the note. Orchard believed there was merit in both proposals. He thought the basic note was pretty great, but in addition agreed with Moore’s position that autonyms have been a special case. He would be pleased to vote on each, as separate proposals to be integrated within the Code. McNeill summarized that he was suggesting that the Rapporteurs’ proposal be treated not as an amendment but rather as a separate proposal, in which case, he recommended that the Section return to the original proposal and after that address the new proposal. Prop. C was rejected.Christina Flann et al. PhytoKeys 45: four (205)Rapporteurs’ Proposal McNeill opened on the Rapporteurs option. [The motion was seconded and supported by three other folks.] K. Wilson agreed with her fellow Australian and thought that this really should be inside the Code. She had a lot trouble with students (and a few practicing botanists!) who did not know the difference in between taxonomy and nomenclature. She added that it was not just the molecular individuals who had difficulty. Watson agreed with Wilson plus the Rapporteurs. He felt PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20889843 it was important to have a clear statement early on in the Code on the distinction involving nomenclature and classification. Per Magnus J gensen also agreed with Wilson and Watson, but thought that the correct place to put a.
