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

[Tony Rees]

Sorry, a sentence in the above message was incomplete:

"* 11.10. The principle of priority does not apply above the rank of
family, however for order, class, or division"
append: " 16A.1. In choosing among typified names for a taxon above the
rank of family, authors should generally follow the principle of priority."

Regards - Tony


On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 05:35, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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%7C9ea1c6215fdf469ec1de08da26300a57%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637864285040423252%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Q4oJdbRLLTuLFoPC8Gft1L98WRhvUqRqdOx4UIjG6dg%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%7C9ea1c6215fdf469ec1de08da26300a57%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637864285040423252%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=022RzBVmQspWVUk7LOysvm0iXKapxYPio6%2F1ujtPBeg%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%7C9ea1c6215fdf469ec1de08da26300a57%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637864285040423252%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cWNgGmZ2e2Loljo6j%2BDgQc1%2FHhHXdJGyoXHroNXXMuE%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C9ea1c6215fdf469ec1de08da26300a57%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637864285040423252%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=d3Xy5wEHStQUPum4hs0p3s%2FE%2FB%2FIap55NEwRhRnzWNw%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%7C9ea1c6215fdf469ec1de08da26300a57%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637864285040423252%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8xa%2FS5n7EwrBmuOfjNQ1pLUEFIezUr8v5AbM5lKfLUc%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%7C9ea1c6215fdf469ec1de08da26300a57%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637864285040423252%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8xa%2FS5n7EwrBmuOfjNQ1pLUEFIezUr8v5AbM5lKfLUc%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>>
>