CSIRO PUBLISHING Historical Records of Australian Science, 2012, 23, 34–54 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/HR12002 National Identity and International Science: The Case of Acacia Libby Robin A,C and Jane Carruthers B A Fenner School of Environment and Society,Australian National University and Centre for Historical Research, National Museum of Australia, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. B Department of History, University of South Africa, PO Box 392, Unisa, 0003, Republic of South Africa. C Corresponding author. Email: libby.robin@anu.edu.au The article considers the role that history and botanical politics played during the nomenclatural debates surrounding the decision taken at the XVII International Botanical Congress (IBC) in Vienna in 2005 to conserve the genus Acacia with the type A. penninervis, an acacia from the Australian group, and the confirmation of this decision at the XVIII IBC in Melbourne in 2011. What was unusual about this issue was that it was contested in the public media as well as in professional botanical circles. It also resulted in fierce critiques about how the processes of international botany should operate. Many natural scientists strongly believe that their disciplines are objective and untainted by influences outside ‘science’, yet this recent example from international botany shows how politics in science, and scientific politics, may cast a long shadow over scientific decisions. In terms of external influences on science, we provide an overview of the competitive claims to Acacia as a national symbol in Australia and Africa that fuelled some of the discussion. We present some of the ‘compromise proposals’ that were circulated in advance of the Melbourne meeting and describe that meeting, focusing on the implications of the Acacia decision for the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. We reflect on the complex role played by national identity and emotional passion for plants that has been revealed, while also highlighting how this experience has encouraged many botanists around the world to scrutinize more carefully how their international bodies function and to suggest changes and improvements. Additional keywords: Acacia, International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT), International Botanical Congress 2011, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, national botanical symbols, nomenclature, Racosperma, Senegalia, Vachellia. Unambiguous names for organisms are essential for effective scientific communication; names can only be unambiguous if there are interna- tionally accepted rules governing their forma- tion and use. McNeill et al. Preface to Vienna Code (published 24 July 2006, ratified 18 July 2011). 1 Acacia is hopefully a unique case. Something that surely will never happen again. Nicholas Turland, Vice-rapporteur, Bureau of Nomenclature XVIII IBC, 18 July 2011. 2 The case of Acacia concerns nomenclature, a specialist field in botany and, indeed, in any biological science. But it also demonstrates how ‘end users’, whether botanists, commercial foresters and exporters, nationalists and amateur or professional plant enthusiasts in wider society who care about plants—and even symbolism itself—can influence scientific activity. More- over, the Acacia affair sheds light on the work- ings of scientific experts and shows how they may be influenced by views beyond their sci- ence. Other topics germane to our argument include providing an example of how expertise can be clouded, even tainted, by an absence of procedural clarity. Moreover, the need to justify financial expenditure, in this case by not disrupt- ing names for commercial plants, or by obliging certain workers to publish fresh classifications or lists of names (perhaps unwillingly and at their own expense), has added a further undercur- rent in the nomenclatural debates about Acacia. Acacia arose as an issue because some botanists considered that this very large and diverse genus might be divided, or recombined, into several Journal compilation © Australian Academy of Science 2012 www.publish.csiro.au/journals/hras