INTRODUCTIONAims and components of SYSTEMATICS: The aim of Taxonomy includes 3 aspects as follows:

IDENTIFICATION: It is the determination of a taxon as being identical with or similar to another already known element. The determination is done by comparing are representative specimen of the given taxa with that of another which has been authoritatively pre determined (Direct method) or with the help of keys .description illustrations etc. (indirect method).

NOMENCLATURE: It is the system of naming of a taxon correctly based on international rules. Gaspard Bauhinia (1596-1623) was the first to device binomial system ( each name having two parts in Latin). It was Linnaeus who is credited with the name of Father of Nomenclature for his book “Genera Plantarum” where binomial nomenclature was successfully employed.

CLASSIFICATION: It can be defined as the placing or arrangement of plant groups or an individual plant into categories on the basis of similarities or differences in accordance with the rules of nomenclature & according to a particular system, approved by ICBN.

But to develop the construction of the above, the taxonomist approach in different ways which are as follows:

EMPERICAL APPROACH: It is based on the through observation and characterization of the organisms which finally leads to the construction of a classification. This type of approach was developed during Pre-Darwinian period and it becomes popularly accepted.

INTERPRETATIVE APPROACH: This type of approach of classification based on the interpretation of evolution of a taxon, which needs the data from the past history of a taxon. It was developed during Post-Darwinian period.

The modern taxonomy however made and attends to merge the above mentioned two approaches. The aims of modern taxonomy are discussed below:

To supplies an appropriate method of identification. To contribute classification based on natural affinities of the specimen. To contribute a catalog of taxa by studying the different flora. To trace the evolution after a proper observation and interpretation. To supply an integrating and synthetic roll to maintain the relationship among the different biological field.

Phases of taxonomy

According to David and Heywood (1963) Taxonomy consists of the following 4 different consecutive phases:

PIONEER PHASE: This is also called Exploratory Phase. In this phase different plants of a taxon have to be collected throughout the word and identified.

CONSOLIDATION PHASE: In this phase, plants are studied both in the field as well as the herbarium and the ranges of variation are evaluated. The new group / groups, is discovered should be fully described. Thus a monograph is obtained.

BIO-SYSTEMATIC OR EXPERIMENTAL PHASE: This phase is based on the above mentioned 2 phases along with the geographical variation, physiological characteristics, genetical and cytological studies etc.

ENCYCLOPAEDIC/ HOLOTAXONOMIC PHASE: In this phase data from a very wide range of disciplines are assembled together to form a good predictive natural classification.

According to Turril (1938) the classification can be divided into following 2 phases: ALPHA TAXONOMY: The first 2 phases i.e. Pioneer & Consolidation phases are based on gross

morphological characters and the classification of these 2 phases are called Alpha Classification or Alpha Taxonomy.

OMEGA TAXONOMY: The last 2 phases i.e. Bio-systematic and Encyclopedic phase are based on the data collected from field, herbarium, laboratory, and library and then properly analyzed with the help of information technology. The classification of plant of these phases called Omega classification or Omega taxonomy.

ICBN(International Code of Botanical Nomenclature)

Elementary Knowledge of ICBNPurpose of Name:

It provides some means of referring to an object. By a particular name we can avoid the misidentification to the object. Names serve as the purpose of information storage and reviewed data. By a name, we can indicate the taxon or rank of the object concern.

ICBN has its origin in 1867 when Alphanso De Candolle attempted to set some rules for naming plants through laws of nomenclature. Later, in 1905 first International Botanical Congress attempted to take some decision for nomenclature of taxonomy and which continued till 1930 in every 3-4 years interval up to Cambridge Congress. Then after some years gap, in 1948 Lanzoo discussed about the formation of IAPT (International Association for Plant Taxonomy) and ICNCP (International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plant) and came into being from 1950. Since then IAPT is dealing with the naming of plant and their problems.

International Botanical Congress London (1866) draft IBC -----Paris (1867): Rules of Botanical nomenclature. IBC------Berlin (1899) # IBC-----Montreal (1959) IBC------Vienna (1905) # IBC-----Edinburgh (1964) IBC------Brussels (1910) # IBC-----Seattle(1969-1976) IBC------Cambridge (1930) # IBC-----Leningrad(1975-1978) IBC------Amsterdam (1935) # IBC-----Sidney(1981-1983) IBC------Stockholm (1950) # IBC-----Berlin (1987-1988) IBC-----Paris (1954) # IBC----Yokohoma(Tokyo)(1993-1994) IBC-----Montreal (1959) # IBC-----St.Louis (1999-2000) IBC-----Edinburgh (1964) # IBC-----Vienna(2005) IBC-----Seattle(1969-1976)

ICBN is not a permanent body. It changes at regular interval. The latest codes supersede all the older ones. So, now St.Louis code 2000 is valid and content of this code divided into 3 divisions:

AUTHOR CITATION: Each name used is proposed by one or more than one authors. A name considered to be complete must be shown with name of the author/ authors otherwise it will be treated as incomplete. This is done because a particular name is used by more than one author for more than one taxon. EX--- Zizyphus jujuba Mill (1768) (China) Zizyphus jujuba Lank. (1795) (South Africa) So, to check the proper identity of the plant the name of the authority should be given. Name of the plant & Name of the author in abbreviated from is known as author citation.

Roxburgh = Roxb. Wallich = Wall. Bentham = Benth. Clarke = Cl. Robert Brown= R.Br. There are some rules to solve ambiguity in author citation.

De Candolle = 3 generation of Botanist.Alphanso de Candolle = DC.

Augustine P de Candolle = A.PDC.Caslunare de Candolle = C.DC.

When more than two authors are there then the author citation is written as H.B.K after Humboldt, Bonpalm and Kunth.

Sometimes some title may create some problem in case of father and son. As for example. William Hooker is written as Hook and his son J.D.Hooker is written as Hook. f. (filial=son).

Pimpinella diversifolia Wall. ex-DC or DC. The name was proposed by Wallich but he never validly published it. It was effectible published by Alphanso de Candolle. For saving space we can write only DC.

Smythea lanceata Seem. in A. Gray. Seeman validly published the name in a book that was published by Gray.

Acronema bella (CL) P.K.Mukh. this plant had tuberous root, previously name was Pimpinella bella by Clerk but Pimpinella does not possess tuberous root. So, generic name has been changed by P.K.Mukherjee.

Tamarix aphylla (L.) L. It is an angiospermic plant but previous name was Thuja aphylla L. means Linnaeus was the author, but he kimself changed the name.

♥ Cite two authors joined by et or & (i.e. Berk. & Curt.).♣ Cite three or more authors as et alia (et al.).♠ A collection of papers edited by a single editor.

Ex: Petersen as editor of Evolution in the Higher Basidiomycetes, where Singer described several new species of Melanophyllum. These should be cited as M. braziliense Singer in Petersen, for Petersen is the editor of record for book. A librarian will not find the citation under Singer, but under Petersen

♦ A single author proposes a name in the published work of multiple authors. Ex: Smith proposed Cantharellus wilsonii in a publication by Smith and Morse. It should be cited as C. wilsonii Smith in Smith and Morse.

An additional situation arises when an author uses a name employed by an earlier investigator in the latter's notes, journals, herbarium labels, etc.. If the publishing author wishes to cite the investigator, he may do so by using apud.

Ex: Berkeley used Klotzsch's notes and name, Cantharellus canadensis which had not been previously published. The name may be cited as C. canadensis Kl. apud Berk.. When the name is transferred to Gomphus, it bcomes G. canadensis (Kl. apud Berk.) Petersen.

a pre-starting date author whose proposed name has been devalidated.Ex: Hydnum repandum L. ex Fr.; Rosa alba Tourn. ex Will.

a post starting-date author who did not complete the steps for valid publication, but whose proposed name is used by a later author validly.

EX: Roger Heim notoriously omitted Latin diagnoses, and his names were therefore often invalidly published. If a later author uses Heim's proposed name (and wishes to cite him for it), the name should be cited as Heim ex Smith

When the pre-starting date author otherwise validly published the name, but the name was devalidated by legislation about starting dates (see Art. 13), then that author may be cited with per.

Ex: Agaricus bisporus Per. per Fr.Mycologists have addopted use of ":" for names used in sanctioning publications.  Four alternatives are open for pre-starting date authors, then:a) use of ex (invalidly published or devalidated)b) use of square brackets (invalidly published or devalidated)

c) use of per (validly published, but devalidated)d) use of ":" (pre-starting date fungi, later sanctioned)Recommendation 46D.1. Another use of this concept is the taxon name followed by mihi (= "me") or nobis (the empirical "we" or "us"). This was voguish in late 19th and early 20th century, but current practice uses the author’s full name, or an unmistakable abbreviation.Recommendation 46E. Square brackets for pre-starting date authors.

RULES OF PRIORITY & ITS LIMINATION:When two or more names have been given to a single plant, the name that has been validly published first

should be taken. PRINCIPLE 3: The nomenclature of a taxonomy group is based upon the priority of publication. PRINCIPLE 4: Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position and rank can be only 1

plant name and the earliest in accordance with the codes should be taken accepted in specified case. ARTICLE 11:- Each family or taxon or lower rank with a particular circumscription, position or rank can

only been with 1 correct name special exception are made for 9 families and for those alternative names are permitted.

ARTICLE 11.3:- For any taxon from family to genus the correct name is legitimate one with the same rank exception for those which are conserved the correct name of the species is the combination of the epithet of the earliest legitimate name of the taxon in the same rank with the correct name of the genus, to which it is assigned.

LIMITATION:- Priority rules dose not applied to the rank above the family.

To be eligible for the consideration of the priority a name must be validly published. For consideration of the priority a name should have not been published before the starting date

(1/5/1753) of publication of “Genera Plantarum”. Priority rule does not apply outside the rank.

TypificationStabilization of names is the main aim of the code and so a type must be selected when a new name is introduced. This concept of type was started in America during Rochester Code (1892). In Leningrade Code (1978) typification is dealt under Arts 7-10.Kinds of Types

♠ Nomenclatural Types is that constituent element of a taxon to which the name of the taxon is permanently attached whether as a correct name or synonym.

♣ 2. Generic type: - The type species of a genus for the genus Hypericum thegeneri type is H perforatum L.♥ 3. Holo type: - It is the one specimen of other element used by the author as the nornenclatural type (Art 7).

The holotype is selected by the author from a single collection at one time.♦ Isotype: - A duplicate of the hole type, it is always a specimen e.g. Polygala jacobii chanddr, in bull. Bot,

surv, India 9 (1-4) 288-289. 1967 Paratype: - A specimen cited with the original described based or more than one gathering made at different

times, the author will designate one gathering as holotype and isotype . Here the first collection becomes the holotype andthe other paratype.

Syntype: - Any one or two or more specimens cited by the author when no holotype was designated or any one or two or more specimens simultaneously International Code of Botanical Nomenclature Typification 229 designated as types.

Lectoype: - A specimen or other element selected from the original material to serve as a nomenclatural type when no holotype was designated at the time of publication or as long as it missing.

Neo Type: - A Specimen selected to serve as Nomenclatural type as long as allmaterial on which the name of the taxon was based is missing.

Retention and Rejection of Names: This is dealt in Arts 15-56 of the code. Section 1 Retention

An alteration of the diagnostic character of a taxon does not warrant a change in its name (Art 51) e.g. Beccari made alterations in the diagnostic characters of the g Gomphandra When a genus is divided into 2 or more genera the generic name must be retained for one of them. (Art

52) When a species is divided into 2 or more species, the specific epithet must be retained for one of

them (Art 53)

When a subdivision of a genus is transferred to another genus under another generic name for the same genus without change of rank. When a species transferred to another genus, the specific epithet, legitimate, must be

retained. In the following it cannot be retained because. a. It becomes a later homonym (Art 55) e.g. Ervatamia caudate Gamble (1921) b. The resulting binary name is a tautonym. e.g. Pyrus malus L. (1753) Malus Pumila Mill

When 2 or more taxa of the same rank are united the oldest legitimate name is retained (Art 57) e.g. Schumann united the following 3 genera into one

Sloaneal L. (1753) of Eleaocarpaceace.Echinocarpus Shumes (1825) of Tiliaceae

Phoenicosprema Miq (1865) of EleaocarpaceaeHe selected the oldest legitimate name and named as Sloaneal L. (1753)

Section 2 Rejection A name is illegitimate and is to be rejected if it was nomenclaturally superfluous when published (Art 64).

e.g. Cainito adans is illegimate because it was a superfluous, name for Chrysophyllum L. A name is rejected because it becomes illegitimate due to homonym (Art 64). International Code of

Botanical Nomenclature Typification 231 e.g. BanaNa moq (1849) Banalia Rafin (1840) A name is illegitimate and is to be rejected if it is the name of a taxon which on transfer of that

taxon from the animal to the plant kingdom (Art65). A name is to be rejected if it is based upon a type consisting of two or more entirely discordant

elements. e.g. the Characters of the genus Sohreberal were derived from two genera Cuscuta the parasite and Myrica the host plant. A legitimate name of a epithet should not be rejected because it has lost its meaning.

Effective & Valid Publication It is obvious from the title that there is a distinction between EFFECTIVE publication (how the publication is distributed, or how "effective" the publication is) versus VALID publication (the form of the nomenclatural proposal and its publication). The condition for effective & valid publication has been mentioned in Article 29-45 of the code. Publications regarding new name of a plant with taxon is effective only when the printed matter with its holotype, isotype or syntyoe is distributed to the general botanist or at least with botanical institute or libraries related to botany or with the consequent set matter published in the recognized periodicals or journal concerning botany. Detailed work of the concerned author should be easily understandable in case of new name and should have sufficient reason in case of changing name. Names cannot be proposed verbally, even if at a scientific meeting. The date of effective publication is that date on which the journal is mailed from the printer (and therefore becomes officially "available.") Most reputable journals publish these dates, or list them on the cover of the journal. The publication is not effective by communication of new name in local newspaper or public meeting.

The publication of name of new taxa is considered as valid only when it will fulfill the following conditions: Conformity to articles 16-27 (and H6-7 for hybrids): the rank and formation of the name itself.♥ Conformity to articles 33-45 (specific restrictions on valid publication).

♣ Publication must be effective & must be accompanied by a description of a taxon or by a reference to a previously and effectively published description.

♠ The new name if published after 1/5/1753 must have clear indications of the rank of taxa &the name must be in Latin and should have proper meaning.

Provision of a LATIN DIAGNOSIS (not description or circumscription), OR reference to a previously validly published description or diagnosis (for new combinations).   Without the Latin diagnosis, the name is NOT VALIDLY PUBLISHED, and is termed a nomen nudum (abbreviated nom. nud.).  A name may be proposed without a Latin diagnosis, but the name dates from the date it is furnished with the Latin diagnosis. Before that date it is a nomen nudum. The name is to be attributed to the author who furnishes the LAST requirement for valid publication.

The process of registration is not yet clear, although this rule indicates that there will be more than one bureau through which registration can be effectuated. Registration is not to be confused with approval or sanction. The latter would mean a tribunal, the former merely a bureau. This appears to be another accommodation in advance of Names in Current Usage.