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

[Tony Rees]

OK, let me try to explore further my own questions...

Let us deal first with names at the rank of family.

>From the relevant nomenclatural Code i.e. ICNafp, 2018:

* 11.1. Each family or lower-ranked taxon with a particular
circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name. Special
exceptions are made for nine families and one subfamily for which
alternative names are permitted (see Art. 18.5 and 19.8). The use of
separate names is allowed for fossil-taxa that represent different parts,
life-history stages, or preservational states of what may have been a
single organismal taxon or even a single individual (Art 1.2).

* 11.3. For any taxon from family to genus, inclusive, the correct name is
the earliest legitimate one with the same rank, except in cases of
limitation of priority by conservation or protection (see Art. 14 and F.2)
or where Art. 11.7, 11.8, 19.4, 56, 57, F.3, or F.7 apply.

* 18.1 Note 2. The name of a family may be formed from any validly
published name of an included genus, even one that is unavailable for use,
although the provisions of Art. 18.3 apply if the generic name is
illegitimate.

* 18.3. A name of a family formed from an illegitimate generic name is
illegitimate unless and until it or the generic name from which it is
formed is conserved or protected.

>From the above, it is clear that in the
cases Cycadeoideaceae/Bennettitaceae (based on Cycadeoidea/Bennetites) and
Horneophytaceae/Langiophytaceae (based on Horneophyton/Langiophyton):

1: only one name can be correct in each case [at least, at a particular
point in time], where the intended taxonomic concept is the same.

2: per Art. 11.3, the principle of priority applies to names at family rank
(other aspects being satisfied) so it seems to me that Cycadeoideaceae
Buckland ex Fitton (Geol. Sketch Hastings: 77. 26 Jan 1833
(‘Cycadeoideae’)) (per Doweld) would normally have priority
over Bennettitaceae Lignier (in Nature 50: 595. 1894 (‘Bennettiteae’)
(again per Doweld), however this may be affected by the illegitimacy of the
type genus name i.e. Cycadeoidea Buckland, 1828 (not validly published),
later Cycadeoidea W. Buckland ex Lindley et W. Hutton, nom. cons. prop.
(currently a superfluous replacement name for Mantellia, nom. rej. prop.).
Would I be correct in thinking that, until Doweld's 2016 proposal to
conserve Cycadeoidea is ratified, Bennettitaceae is still technically
correct but would then be replaced by Cycadeoideaceae?

3, again per Art. 11.3, Horneophytaceae (possibly from Němejc, 1960,
reference not seen) should have priority over Langiophytaceae Doweld, 2001,
(in Prosyllab. Tracheophyt.: I), however I am more in the dark about this
one, and note that Doweld is generally very knowledgeable in these matters!
So I would appreciate any further information on this.

4. Once the family names are settled, I am presuming that it is preferable
that the higher taxon ranks follow from these, provided that they are not
descriptive names, noting however:

* 10.10. The principle of typification does not apply to names of taxa
above the rank of family, except for names that are automatically typified
by being formed from generic names (see Art. 16.1(a)), the type of which is
the same as that of the generic name.

* 11.10. The principle of priority does not apply above the rank of family,
however for order, class, or division

So I _think_ that higher taxon names formed from a genus or family would be
"automatically typified", giving e.g.
Cycadeoideaceae/Cycadeoideales/Cycadeoideopsida, such also that
Cycadeoideaceae/Bennettitales (per Taylor) would be incorrect??

I note that in the Horneophyta/Langiophytophyta case, both Tropicos and the
Bryophyte Nomenclator currently use:
----------------
division:Langiophytophyta Doweld, 2001
class:Langiophytopsida Doweld, 2001
order:Langiophytales Doweld, 2001
family:Langiophytaceae Doweld, 2001
----------------
not Horneophyta, etc., so I am wondering what would be the reason for this?

Further input appreciated,

Regards - Tony


On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 at 17:14, dipteryx--- via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
wrote:

> 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%7C93bfad53409f473a611908da2629a6cc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637864258040866079%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jvNxwuGjfIMIqL2jK0PDZN1w2qyYlnWeLJRc7zTd0BU%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%7C93bfad53409f473a611908da2629a6cc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637864258040866079%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oI2i4rUpJDie%2Fh2H7E0%2F9SGIplgSVBW7TXj5%2Bh7Wb6o%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%7C93bfad53409f473a611908da2629a6cc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637864258040866079%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aRN5SlStENx1r1GJjYKAXLDrzBwRGCUzwJx1jf%2FCyF8%3D&reserved=0
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C93bfad53409f473a611908da2629a6cc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637864258040866079%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9dbVh2NI1sA05w2pFho00DeUeWRczlZoIc11Kjnhpi0%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%7C93bfad53409f473a611908da2629a6cc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637864258040866079%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4v7oGayxnsYZcCRT2XulbJQVvs3IWzn80FzmIilohUQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
> _______________________________________________
> 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%7C93bfad53409f473a611908da2629a6cc%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637864258040866079%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4v7oGayxnsYZcCRT2XulbJQVvs3IWzn80FzmIilohUQ%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>