Search the Taxacom archive · Browse by month · Mirror of the former lists.ku.edu archive (1992–2025)

[Taxacom] Picobiliphyta?

Thomas Lammers lammers at uwosh.edu
Sun Jan 14 14:31:33 CST 2007


----- Original Message -----
From: "James L. Reveal" <jreveal at umd.edu>

> And on the specific case of "Polypodiophyta instead of? Pteridophyta" allow? me to remind you that Pteridophyta Schimp. in Schenk, Handb. Palaeont., Palaeophyt.: 1. 1879, based on Pteris L.<

Shows what I know.? I assumed that name was a descriptive one (descpite being aware of the generic names Pteris and Pteridium). 

> Of course, priority is not operative at suprafamilial ranks and 
> one can use 
> either of the above. What should be avoided is a name like 
> Filicophyta which 
> was based on a generic name, Filix Adans. (1763), that is now 
> both rejected 
> and a later homonym (non Seguier, 1754).

Agreed.

Tom Lammers




More information about the Taxacom mailing list