Fungal nomenclature. 1. Melbourne approves a new Code

By Norvell Lorelei L.  

Mycotaxon, Vol. 116, Iss. 1, 2011-04 ,pp. : 481-490

Mycotaxon

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

A new dawn for the naming of fungi: impacts of decisions made in Melbourne in July 2011 on the future publication and regulation of fungal names

By Hawksworth David l.  

IMA Fungus, Vol. 2, Iss. 2, 2011-12 ,pp. : 155-162

IMA - International Mycological Association

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Major changes to the Code of Nomenclature—Melbourne, July 2011

By McNeill John   Turland Nicholas J.  

Taxon, Vol. 60, Iss. 5, 2011-10 ,pp. : 1495-1497

International Association for Plant Taxonomy

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

(042–043) Proposal to modify Article 9 Note 1 and the Glossary of the Melbourne Code

By MatosFernando B.The New York Botanical Garden   2900 Southern Blvd.   Bronx   New York 10458-5126   U.S.A.;   Email: fmatos@nybg.org   PradoJeffersonInstituto de Botânica   Herbário   C.P. 68041   CEP 04045-972   São Paulo   SP   Brazil   MoranRobbin C.The New York Botanical Garden   2900 Southern Blvd.   Bronx   New York 10458-5126   U.S.A.  

Taxon, Vol. 64, Iss. 3, 2015-06 ,pp. : 649-649

International Association for Plant Taxonomy

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Guidelines for requests for binding decisions on application of the Code

By  

Taxon, Vol. 64, Iss. 1, 2015-03 ,pp. : 177-178

International Association for Plant Taxonomy

Access to resources Recommend Favorite