Conserved name

Conservation In botanical nomenclature, conservation is a nomenclatural procedure governed by Article 14 of the ICN. Its purpose is "to avoid disadvantageous nomenclatural changes entailed by the strict application of the rules, and especially of the principle of priority [...]" (Art. 14.1). It applies only to names at the rank of family, genus or species. It may effect a change in original spelling, type, or (most commonly) priority. The substance of the second volume is generated from a database that also holds a history of published proposals and their outcomes, the binding decisions on whether a name is validly published (article 38.4) and on whether it is a homonym (article 53.5). Procedure • The procedure starts by submitting a proposal to the journal Taxon (published by the IAPT). This proposal should present the case both for and against conservation of a name. Publication notifies anybody concerned that the matter is being considered and makes it possible for those interested to write in. Publication is the start of the formal procedure: it counts as referring the matter "to the appropriate Committee for study" and Rec 14A.1 comes into effect. The name in question is (somewhat) protected by this Recommendation ("... authors should follow existing usage as far as possible ..."). • After reviewing the matter, judging the merits of the case, "the appropriate Committee" makes a decision either against ("not recommended") or in favor ("recommended"). Then the matter is passed to the General Committee. • After reviewing the matter, mostly from a procedural angle, the General Committee makes a decision, either against ("not recommended") or in favor ("recommended"). At this point Article 14.16 comes into effect. Art 14.16 authorizes all users to indeed use that name. • The General Committee reports to the Nomenclature Section of the International Botanical Congress, stating which names (including types and spellings) it recommends for conservation. Then, by Div.III.1, the Nomenclature Section makes a decision on which names (including types, spellings) are accepted into the Code. At this stage the de facto decision is made to modify the Code. • The Plenary Session of that same International Botanical Congress receives the "resolution moved by the Nomenclature Section of that Congress" and makes a de jure decision to modify the Code. By long tradition this step is ceremonial in nature only. In the course of time there have been different standards for the majority required for a decision. However, for decades the Nomenclature Section has required a 60% majority for an inclusion in the Code, and the Committees have followed this example, in 1996 adopting a 60% majority for a decision. == Zoology ==

For zoology, the term "conserved name", rather than "nomen conservandum", is used in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, (the code for names of animals, one of several nomenclature codes), this definition is given: ;conserved name :A name otherwise unavailable or invalid that the Commission, by the use of its plenary power, has enabled to be used as a valid name by removal of the known obstacles to such use. This is a more generalized definition than the one for nomen protectum, which is specifically a conserved name that is either a junior synonym or homonym that is in use because the senior synonym or homonym has been made a nomen oblitum ("forgotten name"). An example of a conserved name is the dinosaur genus name Pachycephalosaurus, which was formally described in 1943. Later, Tylosteus (which was formally described in 1872) was found to be the same genus as Pachycephalosaurus (a synonym). By the usual rules, the genus Tylosteus has precedence and would normally be the correct name. But the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) ruled that the name Pachycephalosaurus was to be given precedence and treated as the valid name, because it was in more common use and better known to scientists. The ICZN's procedural details are different from those in botany, but the basic operating principle is the same, with petitions submitted to the commission for review. ==See also==