Abstract:
The arguments towards resolving the Acacia nomenclatural controversy put forth by Thiele & al. (2011) are reviewed
and rebutted. We argue that a truly pragmatic and, moreover, defensible and equitable alternative to accepting the retypification
of Acacia Mill. with a conserved type would be to have the 2006 International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, excluding
this retypification, serve as the basis for discussions at the Nomenclature Section of the Melbourne International Botanical
Congress in 2011. We, and a large component of the international taxonomic community, and beyond, remain convinced that
the minority rule voting procedure used at Vienna on Acacia was inappropriate, resulting in animosity that will without any
doubt linger until this situation is rectified. Such a minority rule procedure has never in the history of Nomenclature Sections
been implemented before. Exclusion of the Acacia retypification can be achieved through a democratic process by objecting
to its inclusion when the printed (2006) Code comes up for adoption at the start of the Nomenclature Section. This is perfectly
within the established process that has been used in past Section meetings. The integrity of the Code will suffer permanent
damage if the retypification of Acacia Mill. with a conserved type is not removed from the ICBN, especially as it ended up
there through a minority decision.
