658 TAXON 59 (2)  April 2010: 656–666 Proposals to amend the Code As per Art. 18.5 of the International code of botanical nomen- clature (ICBN ) (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006), names of certain families which do not agree with the accepted termination (-aceae) of family names are treated as validly published and alter- native names ending in -aceae are given in parenthesis. As per the Art. 18.6, the use as alternatives of these family names indicated in parentheses in Art. 18.5 is authorized. The origin of the first component of these rules goes back to Art. 22 3º of Candolle’s Lois de la nomenclature botanique of 1867. In the Vienna rules (Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot. 1906), it appeared as Art. 22 that reads: “The following names, owing to long usage, are an exception to the rule: Palmae, Gramineae, Cruciferae, Leguminosae, Guttiferae, Umbelliferae, Labiatae, Compositae”. Principle IV of the ICBN states that each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one cor- rect name, the earliest that is in accordance with the Rules, except in specified cases. However, the Cambridge Congress of 1930 introduced the second component of these rules authorizing botanists “to use as alternatives the appropriate names ending in -aceae” (cf. Art. 23 of the “Cambridge rules” (Briquet & al. Int. Rules Bot. Nomencl., ed. 3. 1935). This became the present Arts. 18.5 and 18.6 in the Leningrad Code (Stafleu & al. in Regnum Veg. 97. 1978). Nearly 80 years have passed since the first authorization of alternative names, several gen- erations of taxonomists have passed, several floras have been written, and the freedom to use either of those family names still remains. A perusal of the various floras including local, district, national, and regional so far published revealed that the family names with both regular and irregular terminations which are treated as validly published and listed under Art. 18.5 are used, sometimes without any uniformity and consistency. Listing the names of all such floras with such use of names would consume much space and hence is not provided here. By retaining the provisions of Arts. 18.5 and 18.6, workers are given freedom to use any of the names of the families covered under Art. 18.5 for many more years to come, thereby defeating the above Principle, and in turn the very purpose of the Code; and there will not be a single usage of names of those families in future works also. Hence, we feel that it is high time to do away with the freedom to use the names of those families based on the author’s/worker’s choice. In Art. 18.5 the family name Fabaceae is given as alternative name for the families Leguminosae and Papilionaceae. This creates further confusion and instability to nomenclature. The family name Papilionacae is in contradiction to Art. 18.1 which states that the name of a family is a plural adjective used as a noun formed from the genitive singular of a name of an included genus by replacing the genitive singular inflection with the termination -aceae. There is no generic name Papilion-us (-a -um), and the traditional family or subfamily name was derived from the butterfly-like flowers (Latin Papilio means butterfly). But as the name Papilionaceae is listed in Art. 18.5, its use is currently allowed. In the present context of the proposal to delete Arts. 18.5 and 18.6 and replace them with a Note, the provision to allow the use of the family name Papili- onaceae is inappropriate and hence in order to bring uniformity, consistency and stability of nomenclature no provision is made for its continued use. () Delete Art. . and Art. . and replace them with the following Note: “Note 2. The following names in conformity with Art. 18.1 and earlier approved as alternatives to the designations of long usage hitherto applied to those families and indicated in parentheses below, are alone allowed for use: Asteraceae: type, Aster L. (“Compositae”); Brassicaceae: type, Brassica L. (“Cruciferae”); Poaceae: type, Poa L. (“Gramineae”); Clusiaceae: type, Clusia L. (“Guttiferae”); Lamia- ceae: type, Lamium L. (“Labiatae”); Fabaceae: type, Faba Mill. [= Vicia L.] (“Leguminosae”, “Papilionaceae”); Arecaceae: type, Areca L. (“Palmae”); Apiaceae: type, Apium L. (“Umbelliferae”).” If the above Proposal 110 is approved, the following changes are also essential for the refinement and effectiveness of the related articles of the Code. In order not only to avoid inconsistency in the introduction to the list of conserved family names (Appendix IIB), but also to ensure that the priority of the current “alternative names” is retained, the following is proposed. () Replace “Art. .” by “Art.  Note , in which case it is to be used” at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph in the introductory material to Appendix IIB and delete the second sentence. Since the introduction of provision for use of alternative names, Fabaceae has been in use as an alternative name for Leguminosae for a family inclusive of the subfamilies Papilionoideae/Faboideae, Caesalpinioideae and Mimosoideae. If the present Proposal 110 is approved, the use of Leguminosae would cease and Fabaceae alone would be in use. The family names Fabaceae, Caesalpiniaceae, and Mimosaceae are conserved, and as per Art. 14.5 when a conserved name competes with one or more names based on different types against which it is not explicitly conserved, the earliest of the compet- ing names is adopted in accordance with Art. 11. And, accordingly, but for Prop. 111 above, Caesalpiniaceae (1814) and Mimosaceae (1814) would have priority over Fabaceae (1836), and for those who unite Fabaceae with Caesalpiniaceae and/or Mimosaceae, there should be no effect on the stability of nomenclature of the family. The following proposal is to make clear that Fabaceae should continue (110–114) Proposals to delete Articles 18.5, 18.6 and 19.7, replacing them with three Notes, and to provide consequent changes to App. IIB and to Articles 10.6, 11.1, 18.1, and 19.4 Ahmed H. Alfarhan, 1 M. Sivadasan, 1 Jacob Thomas 1 & Boudjema Samraoui 2 1 Department of Botany & Microbiology, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh – 11451, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 2 Biology Department, University of Guelma, Guelma, Algeria Author for correspondence: M. Sivadasan, drmsivadasan@rediffmail.com