Cargando…
Impact of e-publication changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Melbourne Code, 2012) - did we need to “run for our lives”?
BACKGROUND: At the Nomenclature Section of the XVIII International Botanical Congress in Melbourne, Australia (IBC), the botanical community voted to allow electronic publication of nomenclatural acts for algae, fungi and plants, and to abolish the rule requiring Latin descriptions or diagnoses for...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5445455/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28545387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-0961-8 |
_version_ | 1783238894798503936 |
---|---|
author | Nicolson, Nicky Challis, Katherine Tucker, Allan Knapp, Sandra |
author_facet | Nicolson, Nicky Challis, Katherine Tucker, Allan Knapp, Sandra |
author_sort | Nicolson, Nicky |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: At the Nomenclature Section of the XVIII International Botanical Congress in Melbourne, Australia (IBC), the botanical community voted to allow electronic publication of nomenclatural acts for algae, fungi and plants, and to abolish the rule requiring Latin descriptions or diagnoses for new taxa. Since the 1st January 2012, botanists have been able to publish new names in electronic journals and may use Latin or English as the language of description or diagnosis. RESULTS: Using data on vascular plants from the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) spanning the time period in which these changes occurred, we analysed trajectories in publication trends and assessed the impact of these new rules for descriptions of new species and nomenclatural acts. The data show that the ability to publish electronically has not “opened the floodgates” to an avalanche of sloppy nomenclature, but concomitantly neither has there been a massive expansion in the number of names published, nor of new authors and titles participating in publication of botanical nomenclature. CONCLUSIONS: The e-publication changes introduced in the Melbourne Code have gained acceptance, and botanists are using these new techniques to describe and publish their work. They have not, however, accelerated the rate of plant species description or participation in biodiversity discovery as was hoped. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12862-017-0961-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5445455 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54454552017-05-30 Impact of e-publication changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Melbourne Code, 2012) - did we need to “run for our lives”? Nicolson, Nicky Challis, Katherine Tucker, Allan Knapp, Sandra BMC Evol Biol Research Article BACKGROUND: At the Nomenclature Section of the XVIII International Botanical Congress in Melbourne, Australia (IBC), the botanical community voted to allow electronic publication of nomenclatural acts for algae, fungi and plants, and to abolish the rule requiring Latin descriptions or diagnoses for new taxa. Since the 1st January 2012, botanists have been able to publish new names in electronic journals and may use Latin or English as the language of description or diagnosis. RESULTS: Using data on vascular plants from the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) spanning the time period in which these changes occurred, we analysed trajectories in publication trends and assessed the impact of these new rules for descriptions of new species and nomenclatural acts. The data show that the ability to publish electronically has not “opened the floodgates” to an avalanche of sloppy nomenclature, but concomitantly neither has there been a massive expansion in the number of names published, nor of new authors and titles participating in publication of botanical nomenclature. CONCLUSIONS: The e-publication changes introduced in the Melbourne Code have gained acceptance, and botanists are using these new techniques to describe and publish their work. They have not, however, accelerated the rate of plant species description or participation in biodiversity discovery as was hoped. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12862-017-0961-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5445455/ /pubmed/28545387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-0961-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Nicolson, Nicky Challis, Katherine Tucker, Allan Knapp, Sandra Impact of e-publication changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Melbourne Code, 2012) - did we need to “run for our lives”? |
title | Impact of e-publication changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Melbourne Code, 2012) - did we need to “run for our lives”? |
title_full | Impact of e-publication changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Melbourne Code, 2012) - did we need to “run for our lives”? |
title_fullStr | Impact of e-publication changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Melbourne Code, 2012) - did we need to “run for our lives”? |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of e-publication changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Melbourne Code, 2012) - did we need to “run for our lives”? |
title_short | Impact of e-publication changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Melbourne Code, 2012) - did we need to “run for our lives”? |
title_sort | impact of e-publication changes in the international code of nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (melbourne code, 2012) - did we need to “run for our lives”? |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5445455/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28545387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-0961-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nicolsonnicky impactofepublicationchangesintheinternationalcodeofnomenclatureforalgaefungiandplantsmelbournecode2012didweneedtorunforourlives AT challiskatherine impactofepublicationchangesintheinternationalcodeofnomenclatureforalgaefungiandplantsmelbournecode2012didweneedtorunforourlives AT tuckerallan impactofepublicationchangesintheinternationalcodeofnomenclatureforalgaefungiandplantsmelbournecode2012didweneedtorunforourlives AT knappsandra impactofepublicationchangesintheinternationalcodeofnomenclatureforalgaefungiandplantsmelbournecode2012didweneedtorunforourlives |