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

Sun Apr 24 02:13:32 CDT 2022

The conservation proposal went through:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2Fepdf%2F10.12705%2F661.17&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf40a4a21116d4ff9671d08da25c1f21b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637863812613891573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1WjIhCq1wrDwPMdL4IjZJ97ofdEm6dp7D11EDAJ31lw%3D&reserved=0

Paul

> Op 24-04-2022 07:41 schreef Tony Rees via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>:
> 
>  
> 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%7Cf40a4a21116d4ff9671d08da25c1f21b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637863812613891573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XnSOJ5NiOEN4%2BWUapf8dS2iwlGZ6JoIR5VPXaALwAZs%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%7Cf40a4a21116d4ff9671d08da25c1f21b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637863812613891573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E8SOEAEhQZyVLdytMB%2BhZG5KWkaFjG2fTKlcsqDtfKg%3D&reserved=0
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf40a4a21116d4ff9671d08da25c1f21b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637863812613891573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HO06PIn7IRzDD2MJsFUT8gDbVPnrdyFqjunzoWehCrQ%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cf40a4a21116d4ff9671d08da25c1f21b%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637863812613891573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QIclNEpSCRdsLT3ymS4gbKbk8%2BxQwzrZlpRPaEO7QdU%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.