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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nicolson, Nicky, Challis, Katherine, Tucker, Allan, Knapp, Sandra
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