CHAPTER 14 | A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CODE This account is only the briefest of outlines of the development of the Code. For a very detailed account, up until the VIII International Botanical Congress held in Paris in 1954, see Nicolson (1991). For the remainder of the 20ch century, see McNeill (2000). THE 18TH AND 19TH CENTURIES Linnaeus himself drew up a set of 365 principles that dealt to some extent with biolog- ical nomenclature, the Fundamenta bosanica (Linnaeus, 1735), but these mostly died with their creator and are now forgotten. Early in the following century, Augustin Pyramus de Candolle put forward the principle of priority in his Théorie elémentaire de la botanique (Candolle, 1813). However, a formal set of rules for the nomenclature of algae, fungi, and plants did not come into being until more than half a century later when Alphonse de Candolle, son of Augustin Pyramus, published his Lois de la Nomenclature Botanigue (Candolle, 1867). Candolle's Lois (Laws) were prepared at the request of the Organizing Committee of the International Botanical Congress held in Paris in 1867, co serve as a basis for discussions on controversial issues in nomenclature. SCHISM AND RECONCILIATION (1905-1930) “The next set of rules, based on Candolle’s Lois, were the Régles Internationales de la No- menclature Botanique (International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature) produced at the Il International Botanical Congress, held in Vienna in 1905 (Briquct, 1906). However, trouble was brewing. In the first decade of the 20th cencury, many scientists in the United States became frustrated by what they perceived as their European colleagucs’ sluggishness in adopting the type method, and were unhappy at what they saw as the arbitrariness of permitting so many exceptions to the rules through the conservation of numerous generic names at the Vienna Congress of 1905 (see Briquet, 1906: 72-93). “They therefore decided to take a separate path and adopt their own set of rules, first the so-called “Philadelphia Code” (Arthur & al, 1904) and then the American Code of Bo- tanical Nomenclature (Arthur & al., 1907). The next Congress, held in Brussels in 1910, produced a new edition of the Régles (Briquet, 1912), but the schism between it and the American Code persisted. The London Congress scheduled for 1915 was cancelled because of World War I. At che next Congress, held in Ithaca in 1926, J.I. Briquet, the Rapporteur-général at the Vienna and Brussels Congresses, introduced a round-table discussion on nomenclature (Section for Taxonomy, 1929) and A.S. Hitchcock made suggestions for reconciliation in a paper on the relevance of nomenclature to taxonomy THE code DECODED Be] Useit's CUIDE 10 THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE FOR ALGAE, FUNGI AND PLANTS(Hirclcock, 1929). The schism between much of the United States and the rest of the world ended in 1930, when the Cambridge Congress adopted the type method and produced the Jnsernational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature (Briquet, 1935) DECREASINGLY AMBIGUOUS AND INCREASINGLY DETAILED “The Amsterdam Congress of 1935 did not produce an official revised set of Jnternation- al Rules, but there were unofficial “Brittonia Rules” (Camp & al., 1947) and a belated supplement to the previous Cambridge Rules (Spraguc, 1950). The first Internation- «al Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) was adopted by the Stockholm Congress of 1950 (Lanjouw & al, 1952). Since then, there have been ten further decreasingly ambiguous and increasingly detailed editions of the International Code of Botanical ‘Nomenclature, followed by two editions of the International Code of Nomenclature for «algae, fungi, and plants, each Code adopted by each subsequent Congress and supersed- ing all previous editions Avenyanteruisroayormecooe RM