| - 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 - - | |