In defense of the primacy of the Nomenclature Section in decision‐making in botanical nomenclature: A reply to the Rapporteurs’ comment on Proposal 193 to amend the Shenzhen Code

Abstract

A response is provided to the Rapporteurs’ comments on Proposal 193 to amend the Shenzhen Code. If adopted, Prop. 193would amend Div. III, Prov. 5 of the Code so as to require a simple majority to approve—as opposed to the current 60% majority toreject (and thus 40% + 1 vote to approve)—General Committee recommendations on conservation, protection, or rejection ofnames, suppression of works, and binding decisions. We regard the requirement of a simple majority in the affirmative to approverecommendations of the General Committee to be the fairest and most easily understood procedure available. It is also one that isconsistent with the compromise worked out and published in 2016 by the Special Committee on By-laws that reported to theNomenclature Section at Shenzhen and would restore the procedure used at all nomenclature sections prior to the NomenclatureSection at Vienna in 2005.