Harmonized bionomenclature - a recipe for disharmony

TLDR: Hawksworth (1995) has provided a synopsis of steps towards the writing and possible adoption of a unified International code of bionomenclature, arising from a number of small workshops held in the years between 1985 and 1994.

Abstract: Many taxonomists, from both the botanical and zoological sides of the fence, will have been startled to find that proposals are well advanced to change radically the way in which they practice their science. Hawksworth (1995) has provided a synopsis of steps towards the writing and possible adoption of a unified International code of bionomenclature, arising from a number of small workshops held in the years between 1985 and 1994. His mandate for doing this was the establishment of a Special Committee on Harmonization of the Codes, set up after minimal discussion at the nomenclature sessions of the International Botanical Congress in Yokohama in 1993. It arose out of a proposal by Hawksworth (1993) to alter Art. 65 of the Berlin Code to extend the consideration of homonymy of generic names beyond the botanical Code. In coining new generic names botanists were to include consideration of the Approved List of Bacterial Names and any zoological names on proposed future Lists of Names in Use accorded special protected status by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. This proposal was heavily rejected in the postal ballot prior to the Yokohama congress, but was resurrected at the formal meeting. The brief discussion revealed that the major concerns in raising the matter were twofold: the problem experienced by some taxonomists in having to differentiate between identical generic names legitimately in use for both plant and animal groups under the botanical and zoological Codes, and the problems experienced by those working in some protist groups where organisms can legitimately bear two correct names, depending on whether one decides to treat them as plants or animals. The Special Committee on Harmonization of the Codes was set up with the mandate "to investigate all borderline problems between the biological Codes, and the special problems of all borderline groups, and eventually all questions of harmonization of the Codes that were felt to be soluble" (Greuter & al., 1994: 193). Most of those present at the meeting where this Committee was established presumably believed that they were voting on a mechanism to bring the Codes closer together in relatively minor matters where disruption to existing names and practices would be minimal. At no time was it suggested that the process would involve complete scrapping of the existing Codes and the writing of a new "Harmonized Code" involving elements of all of them.