Article 89. Interpretation of the Code.
89.1. Meanings of words and expressions. In interpreting the Code, the meaning attributed in the Glossary to a word or expression is to be taken as its meaning for the purposes of the Code.
89.1.1. Any question of doubt or difficulty in deciding the meaning of a word or expression used in the Code and the Glossary is to be presented to the Commission, whose ruling shall be final.
89.2. Status of Recommendations, Examples, Titles and Appendices. Recommendations, examples, and all titles and appendices do not form part of the legislative text of the Code.
Preamble | Articles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 | Glossary Appendices Constitution
There is a proposal to remove all Recommendations from the Code (suggested various times by members of the [iczn-list] mailing list). I would support this proposal. The provisions in the Recommendations should either be transferred to Articles, and then be mandatory, or be removed, because they are not necessary and cause only misunderstandings.
Not following a Recommendation has no consequences at all, and this is a problem. Many (including me) regard the Code as a useful convention among zoologists. It contains a legislative text, but without executive force. Not following the provisions of the Code has no direct consequences for an author. It may or may not have the effect that the community will not recognize a nomenclatural act. The Code has even included provisions what to do if authors do not follow the provisions of the Code (and how their actions can be returned into the frame of the Code to make them legal again, Art. 23.9 and others).
In this sense I regard all the Articles as Recommendations - taxonomists are invited to follow them.
I do not understand why examples are expressedly excluded from the legislative text. I would prefer if it was stated that the examples are included to give a binding guide for the interpretation of the Articles (and not be exluded from the legislative text). Perhaps a note could be added that the examples do not necessarily refer to the true case behind the example, but only to the case as presented in a simplified way in the short text.
We could include or add a "Guide for the use of zoological names", which could be useful for non-insiders. This would be the appropriate place to state that names should be cited with author and year when first mentioned in a paper, or that parentheses should be used for species transferred to a different genus.