Taxacom: Seeking advice RE higher taxon names to use for 2 groups of fossil plants

[Tony Rees]

Dear Taxacomers,

I am seeking advice as to the best choice of higher taxon names for a
couple of groups of fossil plants. These are:

1: Order Cycadeoidales Berry, 1916 vs. order Bennettitales Bessey, 1910
by extension: class Cycadeoideopsida Scott, 1923 vs. class Bennettitopsida
Engler 1892
phylum Cycadeoideophyta T.N. Taylor, 1981 vs. phylum Bennettitophyta
Kravtsov & Poljarnaja 1995
family Cycadeoideaceae Buckland ex Fitton, 1833 vs. Bennettitaceae Lignier,
1894

Included families:  Cycadeoideaceae R. Br. ex G.R. Wieland (≡
Bennettitaceae Lignier), Sturianthaceae Doweld (syn.  Sturiellaceae
Němejc), Westersheimiaceae Němejc, Williamsoniaceae (Carruthers) Nathorst,
Williamsoniellaceae Nakai

The type family Cycadeoideaceae/Bennettitaceae includes the type genus
Cycadeoidea W. Buckland ex Lindley et W. Hutton but no current genus
Bennettites (although there is a Bennetticarpus Harris and a Bennettistemon
Harris); Zijlstra et al. (2014) state that "Bennettites Carruthers 1870 is
the most important synonym of Cycadeoidea Buckland ex Lindl. et Hutton
1832. Soon after Seward's conclusion (Seward, 1917, p. 367–386) that these
genera are inseparable, the use of Bennettites stopped".

Doweld, 2016a states that the type generic name, Cycadeoidea Buckland, 1828
was not validly published, but the genus Mantellia Brongniart, 1828 was
validly published for the same taxon later the same year. Subsequently,
Cycadeoidea was validly published by Lindley & Hutton, 1832 but this name
then becomes a superfluus replacement name for Mantellia; Doweld states
that Cycadeoidea Buckland ex Lindl. & Hutton was to be the subject of a
nom. cons. proposal, published as Doweld, 2016b.

Bennettitales (in particular) has always been a popular choice of name for
this group, but would Cycadeoidales in fact be more "correct"? Since 2010,
according to Google Scholar there are 1,760 hits for Bennettitales vs. 121
for Cycadeoidales. Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny, 2015 use
Cycadeoideopsida/Cycadeoidales whereas Taylor et al., 2009 use
Bennettitales with family Cycadeoidaceae.

Doweld, 2016b writes:
"The conservation of Cycadeoidea becomes more important and needed to
legitimize (under the revised provisions in Art. 6.4, 18.3, & 19.6 of the
Melbourne Code) the current use of a distinct family name for this group of
fossils, Cycadeoideaceae Buckland ex Fitton (Geol. Sketch Hastings: 77. 26
Jan 1833 (‘Cycadeoideae’)). Although the other available suprageneric names
in current use such as: ordinal (Cycadeoideales E.W. Berry in Pl. World 19:
36. 1916 (‘Cycadeiodales’)), subordinal (Cycadeoideineae Němejc, l.c. 1968:
265), subclass (Cycadeoideidae Němejc, l.c. 1968: 275), class
(Cycadeoideopsida D.H. Scott (l.c.) (‘Cycadeoideae’)) and phylum names
(Cycadeoideophyta T.N. Taylor (l.c.) (‘Cycadeoidophyta’)) are not made
illegitimate, by the illegitimacy of the generic name from which they are
formed, it would be undesirable to have all the suprafamilial nomenclature
of this fossil plant group based on a different genus from that of the
family and changed into that derived from the alternative fossil cycadeoid
generic name, Bennettites Carruth., which is also available and sometimes
alternatively used in modern palaeobotany such as the family Bennettitaceae
Lignier (in Nature 50: 595. 1894 (‘Bennettiteae’) (even although
Cycadeoideaceae has priority), suborder Bennettitineae D.H. Campbell (Univ.
Text-book Bot.: 347. 1902 (‘Bennettiteae’)), order Bennettitales Bessey (in
Trans. Amer. Microscop. Soc. 29: 94. 1910), subclass Bennettitidae
Davitashvili (Kurs Paleontol.: 701. 1949 (‘Bennettitales’)), class
Bennettitopsida Engler (l.c. (‘Bennettitales’)) and phylum Bennettitophyta
Kravtsov & Poljarnaja (l.c.). The legitimization of Cycadeoidea-derived
suprageneric nomenclature will provide stabilization in the whole
classification of extinct gymnosperms."


References cited:
Doweld, A.B. (2016a). The nomenclature of Cycadeoidea (fossil
Spermatophyta: Cycadeoideopsida). Taxon 65: 372-379

Doweld, A.B. (2016b) (2436–2437) Proposals to conserve the names
Cycadeoidea against Mantellia and
C. megalophylla against M. nidiformis (fossil Spermatophyta:
Cycadeoideopsida), TAXON 65: 397–399 https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.12705%2F652.29&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf8788b1a9f474dbdc88b08da25b5160f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637863757565672079%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3xzCjlkVw0YR9YwO99YmAzrGojWv%2BwBzoLhpDMM%2FLWs%3D&reserved=0

Novikoff, A. & Barabasz-Krasny, B. (2015) System of Embryophytes. In:
Novikoff, A. & Barabasz-Krasny, B. Modern Plant Systematics. Liga-Pres,
Lviv, Ukraine, pp. 23–63.

Taylor, T.N., Taylor, E. & Krings, M. (2009) Paleobotany—The Biology and
Evolution of Fossil Plants. Second Edition. Elsevier/Academic Press,
Amsterdam, Boston, etc., 1252 pp.

Zijlstra, Gea; van Konijnenburg-van Cittert, Johanna H.A. (2014). A
nomenclatural note on Monanthesia and Bennettites. Review of Palaeobotany
and Palynology, 203: 1–2. doi:10.1016/j.revpalbo.2014.01.001

-----------------

2: Class Langiophytopsida Doweld, 2001 (?) vs. Class Horneophytopsida
Němejc, 1960
by extension: Division (=Phylum) Langiophytophyta Doweld, 2001 vs. Division
(=Phylum) Horneophyta
order Langiophytales Doweld vs. order Horneophytales
family Langiophytaceae Doweld vs. family Horneophytaceae
(included genera according to Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny: Caia Fanning et
al., † Horneophyton Bargh. et Darrah, † Hostinella Barrande ex D.R.J. Stur,
† Langiophyton Remy et Hass., † Pectinophyton O.A. Høeg, † Salopella
Edwards et Richardson,† Taeniocrada D. White,† Tarrantia Fanning et al.,†
Tortilicaulis D.S. Edwards)

Langiophytopsida (etc.) is used in Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny

Horneophytopsida has 55 hits in Google Scholar (all years),
Langiophytopsida has none... (the Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny chapter has
apparently disappeared, although is accessible via the Internet Archive).

Horneophytaceae has a few hits in Google Scholar (all years),
Langiophytaceae has none.

Horneophytopsida is used in e.g. Cascales-Miñana, Borja; Steemans,
Philippe; Servais, Thomas; Lepot, Kevin; Gerrienne, Philippe (2019). An
alternative model for the earliest evolution of vascular plants. Lethaia,
(), –. doi:10.1111/let.12323

Horneophyton was named by E.S. Barghoorn & W.C. Darrah, 1938, as a
replacement for the preoccupied genus name Hornea Kidston & Lang, 1920;
Langiophyton by W. Remy & H. Hass, 1991, they are believed to represent
portions of the same plant (sporophyte vs. gametophyte), which are allowed
to be validly published as separate genera in fossil botany.

Division (phylum) Horneophyta does not seem to be validly published
although it is used in some texts. Horneophytopsida dates from Němejc,
1960; Langiophytopsida dates from Doweld, 2001.

Thoughts / opinions very welcome, to assist me in erecting a preferred
classification for these groups, which are certainly important in the plant
fossil record.

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf8788b1a9f474dbdc88b08da25b5160f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637863757565672079%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DVJMePh1I3ngAUKZhkpzfVZg1r%2FFeswmOy9yvGIWq0Q%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf8788b1a9f474dbdc88b08da25b5160f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637863757565672079%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FFS6iw%2BxjReMzspEyrc%2FbTfWHmGE6Nzc1prCxw5CJ0M%3D&reserved=0