| -,Year,City,Country,Code,Major actions concerning nomenclature | |
| I,1900,Paris,France,-,Decisions on nomenclature deferred. | |
| II,1905,Vienna,Austria,Yes,First binding Rules of Nomenclature; French became the official language of the meeting; requirement for Latin plant descriptions from 1908 onwards (not enforced); end of the Kew Rule. | |
| III,1910,Brussels,Belgium,Yes,Separate starting dates for nomenclature of fungi established. | |
| IV,1926,Ithaca,United States,-,Decisions on nomenclature deferred. | |
| V,1930,Cambridge,United Kingdom,Yes,"The type method incorporated; Latin requirement deferred until 1932; ""absolute homonym rule"" accepted, or ""once a later homonym always illegitimate (unless conserved)"", which altered the status of many names, including many that had previously been conserved." | |
| VI,1935,Amsterdam,Netherlands,-,"English became the official language of the Congress, replacing French. No formal Code was published." | |
| VII,1950,Stockholm,Sweden,Yes,Adoption of the first International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants; arbitrary dates defined for some foundational works; decision to hold future congresses every five years (except four years for the next one). | |
| VIII,1954,Paris,France,Yes,"Two additional principles added, II and III, dealing with types and with priority. Proposals to conserve or reject specific names were rejected, but a committee was established to find ways to improve the stability of names." | |
| IX,1959,Montreal,Canada,Yes,"Presentation of a completely reworked list of conserved and rejected names necessitated by changes made at the 1930 congress, but the list for species was not accepted." | |
| X,1964,Edinburgh,United Kingdom,Yes,No major changes to the code. | |
| XI,1969,Seattle,United States,Yes,Established the International Association of Bryologists. | |
| XII,1975,Leningrad,Soviet Union,Yes,"Official versions of the code in English, French, and German (the English version to take precedence in case of discrepancy); rejection of species names allowed in a few special cases; organ-genera for fossil plants are eliminated, replaced by form-genera." | |
| XIII,1981,Sydney,Australia,Yes,"Official versions of the code in English, French, and German (the English version to take precedence in case of discrepancy); conservation procedure (and rejection) extended to species names ""of major economic importance""; fungi starting date restored to 1753 with sanctioned name status established; the types of genera and higher categories become the types of species (i.e., the taxa themselves are no longer types, only specimens or illustrations)." | |
| XIV,1987,Berlin,Germany,Yes,"Official version of the code only in (British) English; later translations in French, German, and Japanese; conservation extended to species names that represent the type of a conserved generic name." | |
| XV,1993,Tokyo,Japan,Yes,"Moves towards registration of plant names; extensive re-arrangement of the nomenclature code; official version of the code only in (British) English; later translations in Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, and Slovak; conservation extended to all species names; rejection permitted for any name that would cause a disadvantageous nomenclatural change; epitype concept introduced." | |
| XVI,1999,St. Louis,United States,Yes,Refinement of type requirements; illustrations as types mostly forbidden from 1958; morphotaxa for fossils. Proposals defeated included the BioCode and registration of plant names. | |
| XVII,2005,Vienna,Austria,Yes,Morphotaxa and regular taxa for fossils; illustrations as types mostly forbidden from 2007; glossary added to the code of nomenclature. | |
| XVIII,2011,Melbourne,Australia,Yes,Electronic publication permitted; registration of fungal names; English or Latin descriptions (or diagnoses) from 2012; the concepts of anamorph and teleomorph (for fungi) and morphotaxa (for fossils) eliminated. | |
| XIX,2017,Shenzhen,China,-,- | |