IMPRESSIONS OF THE MEETING OF THE I.U.B.S. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE NOMENCLATURE OF CULTIVATED PLANTS ON AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE FOR CULTIVATED PLANTS (I.C.N.C.P.), 20 AND 21 OCTOBER 2007

Introduction
On the Saturday and Sunday after the Wageningen Symposium the Commission met in the Wageningen Herbarium. The composition of the Commission (see the Wageningen Abstract Book) had changed considerably compared with the one that prepared the Seventh (2002) edition of I.C.N.C.P. Ten new members were present. Fortunately the 'RHS- team' (Chris Brickell, John David, Alan Leslie and Janet Cubey) had prepared the meeting excellently, ordering all proposals so the discussion could proceed in an organised fashion.
Impression
The discussions were at times lively but took place in a very open and positive atmosphere. Working through the Preamble, Principles, Articles, Examples, Notes, Divisions, Appendices, Glossaries and Indices it is sometimes hard to imagine how the average user can find his or her way through the Code. In time, the price for our never-ending pursuit of perfection could well produce a document that is perfect for a (hopefully) happy few. In that sense I am not very envious of the members of the editorial committee who have to work through the conclusions and put these in the right places in the text.
In the general discussions it was concluded that we should try and limit the introduction of new terminology, or even worse, the re-introduction of old terminology. For the average user, our Code could well lose credibility if a constant coming and going of terms occurs. It was also concluded that the Code, though aiming to be applicable world-wide, in some places, contains too many specifically English terms and examples and would benefit from improvements in this respect. As for the “hot” items that were on the table and partly discussed during the 5th Wageningen Symposium as well, the following points were decided:

• not to (re-)introduce the terms Cultigen, Cultigroup or Cultivar Group; instead to work, if necessary, to improve and clarify the definitions rather than to introduce new terms, but to re-introduce the term taxon
• not to replace category by rank
• to pay a great deal more attention to trade designations and trade marks and their effect on nomenclature; however, as these terms are not governed by the Code, to do this in an Annex to the Code
• to organize a separate discussion on the composition of the Nomenclatural Standard, taking into account herbarium specimens, (digital) pictures, DNA material, copyright etc.
• to place slightly fewer limitations on possible words that could be used for cultivar names, for example Latin words not derived botanically etc.
• to improve the transliteration systems in use so these become more reciprocal
• to enlarge the possibilities for electronic publications provided printed versions can be stored at least at a limited number of libraries
• to try and include information for users of the Code who are dealing with both ICRA and UPOV based statutory authorities so that the differences that remain in the rules can still be applied.

Many other proposals were discussed in detail and after a positive decision referred to the Editorial Committee for proper inclusion in the text.
Conclusion
All in all I think we made good progress but there is (as always) still room for improvement.
It was agreed that it was very desirable to organise wider discussion on proposals before the Commission meets to decide on changes and amendments. The IACPT can play an important role in this and organise these discussions. A possible example could be a further discussion on the (minimal) composition of a Nomenclatural Standard. I am sure this can be of great help to the future of I.C.N.C.P.