[Taxacom] Malus domestica conservation proposal

Fri May 25 03:25:35 CDT 2012

Paul, Scott & al.

The "Proposals and Disposals" site was maintained by Dan Nicolson whose health now precludes any botanical work.  The Department of Botany at the Smithsonian Institution have now made arrangements for the site to continue to be maintained, but, again for reasons outside of their control, there has been some delay in getting it up-to-date.

John

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McNeill, Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario Museum;
    Honorary Associate, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh
Mailing address:  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U.K.
Telephone:    +44-131-248-2848;  fax: +44-131-248-2901
Home office:  +44-162-088-0651
e-mail: jmcneill at rbge.ac.uk (mail to johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> "Paul van Rijckevorsel"  05/25/12 8:41 AM >>>
Yes, the "Proposals and Disposals" site at the Smithsonian can be very useful, but the Malus domestica proposal is not listed, nor are the actions taken on the Malus toringoides proposal, although this has been reported on by the special Committee and the General Committee, and has been accepted by the Melbourne Congress. The Malus domestica proposal was published in April 2010, so it looks as if the site lags more than two years behind? Perhaps an additional person should be assigned to keep it up to date?

Publishing the deliberations of a Committee looks to be a very attractive idea, but perhaps for some groups of taxa the outside pressure is felt to be too severe for such openness to be risked?

Paul

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Redhead, Scott 
  To: Bevan Weir ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  Cc: Paul van Rijckevorsel 
  Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 2:38 PM
  Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Malus domestica conservation proposal

  Usually resolved conservation and rejection proposals in botany/mycology/phycology are tracked at 

  http://botany.si.edu/references/codes/props/index.cfm

  but I do not see this more recent proposal. I do see:

  Here are the results of your query:

        Proposal No.

        Cons.:

       Malus rivularis

        Rej.:

       Malus fusca, Malus diversifolia

        Group:

       Sperm.

        Act:

       Csp

        Author:

       Suringar

        Where:

       Prop. Intl. Rules Bot. Nom.: 25. 1929.

        Synopsis:

       1930: 137

        Group Comm.:

        Gen. Comm.:

        Congr. Proc.:

       -1931: 619

        Code:

        Comm. & Rev.:

       Suringar in Meded. Rijks-Herb. 56: 43-44. 1928.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Proposal No.

       1848

        Cons.:

       Malus toringoides

        Rej.:

       Pyrus bhutanica

        Group:

       Vasc.

        Act:

       Csp

        Author:

       Qian, Liu, Hong, & Phipps

        Where:

       Taxon 57: 1009. 2008.

        Synopsis:

        Group Comm.:

        Gen. Comm.:

        Congr. Proc.:

        Code:

        Comm. & Rev.:

  As for the policy of not disclosing what is happening internally within a committee, that really depends upon the committee and is not an absolute rule. 

  Note that the Nomenclatural Committee for Fungi has been trying to post its discussions to be more transparent:

  http://www.ima-mycology.org/CFF/

  http://www.ima-mycology.org/CFF/pdf.html

  Scott 

  -----Original Message-----
  From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Bevan Weir
  Sent: May-24-12 2:46 AM
  To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
  Subject: [Taxacom] Malus domestica conservation proposal

  Hi all,

  I am trying to track down what happen to this proposal "(1933) Proposal to conserve the name Malus domestica against M. pumila, M. communis, M. frutescens, and Pyrus dioica (Rosaceae)"

  http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2010/00000059/00000002/art00038

  There is no mention of it in "Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 63"

  http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax/2011/00000060/00000004/art00025

  Despite mentioning other proposals e.g. 1932 and 1934, so I guess it was not part of the IBC votes, but why not!? Is it explicitly rejected, or just not considered?

  Thanks for any clarification.

  --

  Dr Bevan Weir

  Research Scientist

  Mycology and Bacteriology Group

  Biosystematics

  Landcare Research

  Phone: +64 9 574 4115 Mobile: +64 21 723826 email: weirb at landcareresearch.co.nz

  Private Bag 92170, Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland 1142, New Zealand Fungal Biosystematics Research

  Group Publications

  My Publications

  ________________________________

  Please consider the environment before printing this email

  Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.

  The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz _______________________________________________

  Taxacom Mailing List

  Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

  The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

  (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

  (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here