CCCN Report |
Corresponding author: Wolfgang Willner ( wolfgang.willner@univie.ac.at ) Academic editor: Jürgen Dengler
© 2024 Wolfgang Willner, Andraž Čarni, Federico Fernández-González, Jens Pallas, Massimo Terzi, Jean-Paul Theurillat.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Willner W, Čarni A, Fernández-González F, Pallas J, Terzi M, Theurillat J-P (2024) Report 3 of the Committee for Change and Conservation of Names (CCCN). Vegetation Classification and Survey 5: 257-265. https://doi.org/10.3897/VCS.142803
|
We report the decisions made by the Assembly of the Group of Phytosociological Nomenclature (GPN) in 2023 on previous recommendations of the Committee for Change and Conservation of Names (CCCN). Further, we discuss eight Requests for a binding decision and nine nomenclatural Proposals. Recommendations on acceptance or rejection of these Proposals are provided. We recommend the conservation of the following names: Mesobromion erecti (Braun-Blanquet et Moor 1938)
Abbreviations: CCCN = Committee for Change and Conservation of Names; GPN = Working Group for Phytosociological Nomenclature; ICPN = International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature; VCS = Vegetation Classification and Survey.
binding decision, Isoetetalia, Mesobromion, Nanocyperetalia, nomenclature, nomen conservandum, phytosociology, syntaxonomy
The Committee for Change and Conservation of Names (CCCN) is a Topic Committee of the Working Group for Phytosociological Nomenclature (GPN) established in accordance with the International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (ICPN;
In May 2022, the GPN Steering Committee co-opted Massimo Terzi to the CCCN. It now consists of six members, namely: Wolfgang Willner (chair), Andraž Čarni, Federico Fernández-González, Jens Pallas, Massimo Terzi and Jean-Paul Theurillat.
Authors wishing to submit a Proposal or a Request for a binding decision on a syntaxon name are asked to consult Appendices 2 and 6 of the International Code of Phytosociological Nomenclature (ICPN), respectively (
Our report is structured into three main sections: In the first section, we report the final decisions made by the GPN Assembly on previous recommendations of the CCCN. In the second section, we discuss new Requests for binding decisions, and in the third one, we discuss new Proposals for the conservation or rejection of syntaxon names. Our recommendations remain provisional until approved by the GPN Assembly. The final decisions on the new recommendations will be presented in the next CCCN Report.
In spring 2023, the members of the GPN were asked to vote on the recommendations published in the last CCCN Report (
(17*) To conserve the name Berberidion Braun-Blanquet 1950 with a conserved type and against Prunion spinosae
(20) To conserve the name Aceretalia pseudoplatani
(21) To conserve the name Festucetalia valesiacae Br.-Bl. et Tx. ex Br.-Bl. 1950 against Festucetalia
(21*) To conserve the name Festucetalia valesiacae Br.-Bl. et Tx. ex Br.-Bl. 1950 with a conserved type and against Festucetalia
All recommendations (positive and negative ones) have been accepted. Therefore, the following entries are to be added to Appendix 3 of the ICPN (
(17) Berberidion Braun-Blanquet 1950 nom. et typus cons. [
(=) Prunion spinosae
Typus conservandus: Berberido-Rosetum
(20) Aceretalia pseudoplatani
(=) Tilietalia
Holotypus: Lunario-Acerion
(21) Festucetalia valesiacae Braun-Blanquet et Tüxen ex Braun-Blanquet 1950 nom. et typus cons. [
(=) Festucetalia
Typus conservandus: Festucion valesiacae
During the reporting period, the CCCN examined four published Requests for a binding decision. They are numbered from (1) to (4) in the following section, as in the original publications. In addition, several ad hoc Requests arose during the discussion of Proposals. These are numbered (A1), (A2), etc., in the order in which they were discussed.
(1) Name-giving taxon in the name Isoeto longissimae-Cicendietum Br.-Bl. 1967 nom. corr. Request by
The members of the CCCN see no problem with the proposed choice of the name-giving Cicendia species and therefore recommend that the Request be accepted. However, we noticed that the nomenclature of the corresponding alliance ‘Cicendion (Rivas Goday in Rivas Goday et Borja 1961) Br.-Bl. 1967’ (form of the name in
(2) Name-giving taxon in the name Gnaphalio-Verbenetum supinae
While the CCCN supports the proposed name-giving Gnaphalium species, there was a discussion about the legitimacy of the inversion of the name. Both Gnaphalium luteoalbum and Verbena supina belong to the herb layer, so only the second paragraph of Art. 10b applies. The inversion is based on the lectotype where Verbena supina has a higher cover than Gnaphalium luteoalbum. However, considering the original diagnosis as a whole (table 8 in
(3) Valid publication of the names Xerobromion and Mesobromion in
The requirement of explicitly using the name at the new rank – in this case with the explicit indication of the rank, as the termination -ion is ambiguous – is analogous to the rule for changing the position of a subassociation (Art. 4b): the new combination (association name plus subassociation epithet) must be used explicitly; the mere expression of the change of position is not sufficient.
(A1) Valid publication of the names Carpinetum and Alno-Carpinetum in
During the discussion of Proposals 24 and 25 (
(A2) Name-giving taxon in the name Lithospermo-Carpinetum betuli
This Request was part of Proposal 24 (see below). Lithospermum purpurocaeruleum is mentioned as a character species of the association with constancy IV, while L. officinale is listed as a class species with constancy II. Although L. purpurocaeruleum may have been intended as the name-giving taxon, there is no information in the original diagnosis that this was the case. The CCCN voted unanimously to accept the choice of L. purpurocaeruleum as the name-giving species.
(A3) Name-giving taxon in the name Nanocyperetalia Klika 1935. Request by J.-P. Theurillat (CCCN). Suggested completion of the name: Nanocyperetalia flavescentis. Vote: 5 pro, 1 abstention (recommended).
The holotype of this order is the alliance Nanocyperion flavescentis
(A4) Name-giving taxa in the names Isoetetalia
Both names were published without a specific epithet and are mostly used without epithet in the literature. However, since the type association of the Isoetion is the Isoetetum durieui
(4) Name-giving taxon in the names Molinio arundinaceae-Quercetum Samek 1962 and Molinio arundinaceae-Quercetum Neuhäusl et Neuhäuslová-Novotná 1967. Request by
This request was submitted together with Proposal 28 (
The Proposals are numbered as in the original publication. An asterisk (*) after the number of the Proposal indicates that the recommended version of the Proposal differs from the original one.
(22) To conserve the name Mesobromion erecti (Braun-Blanquet et Moor 1938)
(22*) To conserve the name Mesobromion erecti (Braun-Blanquet et Moor 1938)
Although the CCCN did not reach a unanimous decision, a majority voted in favour of this Proposal. The main reasons are as follows: (i) The name Bromion erecti is potentially confusing for people unfamiliar with phytosociological nomenclature. Mesobromion and Xerobromion are names with well-defined contents, whereas Bromion has been used in at least three different ways: (a) in the sense of the Mesobromion (e.g.,
There was also a lively discussion in the CCCN about the type of the name Mesobromion erecti (Braun-Blanquet et Moor 1938)
Another question is the correct author citation of the Mesobrometum erecti.
(23) To conserve the name Galio sylvatici-Carpinetum betuli
The name Galio sylvatici-Carpinetum betuli is widely used for the oak-hornbeam forests of Central Europe, except in the more Atlantic west, where the name-giving Galium sylvaticum and some other diagnostic species do not occur and the Galio-Carpinetum is replaced by the Stellario-Carpinetum (
The first author who described a Querco-Carpinetum was
In view of all these facts, it is obvious that the reintroduction of the name Querco roboris-Carpinetum
(24) To conserve the name Lithospermo-Carpinetum betuli
(24*) To conserve the name Lithospermo-Carpinetum betuli
The Lithospermo-Carpinetum betuli
Oberdorfer’s name Lithospermo-Carpinetum betuli is a nomen superfluum for the Carpinetum betuli
(25) To conserve the name Stellario holosteae-Carpinetum betuli
(25*) To conserve the name Stellario holosteae-Carpinetum betuli
The name Stellario-Carpinetum was coined by
In contrast to Proposals 23 and 24, it can hardly be argued that the reintroduction of the name Alno-Carpinetum for wet oak-hornbeam forests would be a continuous source of error, even though it would be a change of a name commonly used in some countries. However, during the discussions in the CCCN, serious doubts arose as to whether the names Alno-Carpinetum
Since the original diagnosis of the Alno-Carpinetum only contains a synoptic table, we select a neotype from
(26) To conserve the name Nanocyperetalia Klika 1935 against Nanocypero-Polygonetalia
The name Nanocypero-Polygonetalia
(27) To conserve the name Isoetetalia
According to its original diagnosis in
(28) To conserve the name Molinio arundinaceae-Quercetum Neuhäusl et Neuhäuslová-Novotná 1967 against Molinio arundinaceae-Quercetum Samek 1962. Proposed by
The name Molinio arundinaceae-Quercetum is used for hygrophytic Central European acidophilous oak forests (
(29) To conserve the name Omphalodo nitidae-Coryletum avellanae Amigo, G. Azcárate et Romero 1994 with a conserved type. Proposed by Rodríguez-Guitián and Amigo Vázquez (2022). Vote: 2 pro, 4 contra (not recommended).
This name was coined by
During the discussion of the Proposal, a contradiction between Art. 29b, Example 5 and Art. 53 was detected. On the one hand, the mentioned Example suggests that a name being illegitimate due to a physiognomically “untypical” type can be preserved by a conserved type. On the other hand, Art. 53 states that names rejected according to Art. 29b are not eligible for getting a conserved type. There was no agreement among the CCCN members whether this contradiction is absolute (and therefore could only be resolved by an amendment to the Code) or merely bad wording that could be resolved by appropriate interpretation (i.e., conservation is acceptable if the conserved type eliminates the violation of Art. 29b and at the same time preserves the current use of the name).
An important difference between the present Proposal and Example 5 of Art. 29b is the fact that the holotype of the Omphalodo nitidae-Coryletum avellanae was not selected by accident but fully intentionally. Indeed,
(30) To conserve the name Polysticho setiferi-Fraxinetum excelsioris (Tüxen et Oberdorfer 1958) Rivas-Martínez ex Díaz et Fernández Prieto 1994 with a conserved type. Proposed by
This case is similar to the previous one in that it concerns the name of a woodland in the Atlantic part of the Iberian Peninsula, supposedly dominated by Quercus robur in its most mature stage, but more often represented by seral stages dominated by Fraxinus excelsior and Corylus avellana due to human land use. However, in contrast to the Omphalodo nitidae-Coryletum avellanae, the name-giving Fraxinus excelsior is a tree of similar size as Quercus robur. The name Polysticho setiferi-Fraxinetum excelsioris is a nomen novum for the illegitimate name Corylo-Fraxinetum cantabricum Tüxen et Oberdorfer 1958. However, in the lectotype selected by Díaz and Fernández Prieto (1994) Quercus robur (without layer) has only a +, Fraxinus excelsior (tree layer) a 2 and Fagus sylvatica (tree layer) a 4 (relevé 139 in table 87 in
Before proceeding to neotypification, the authors of the proposal should have considered whether forests dominated by Fraxinus excelsior and those dominated by Quercus robur could be considered as different associations, in which case a new association should be described for the latter, and a neotype with a dominance – or at least co-dominance – of F. excelsior in the tree layer should be selected for the former. However, this is a syntaxonomic question that is beyond the mandate of this Committee. In any case, there is no immediate need to conserve the name Polysticho setiferi-Fraxinetum excelsioris with a conserved type, and therefore the proposal is not recommended.
No data used.
All authors are members of the CCCN and participated in the evaluation and discussion of the Proposals and the Requests. WW planned the report and wrote the first draft, which was commented and revised by all authors.