Taxacom: Question to botanical experts RE ICNafp Code - rank changes for descriptive names, with changed termination

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

Well, again, in the /ICNafp/, a descriptive name (above the
rank of family) can only have one authorship, and this cannot
be changed. Its spelling cannot be changed, either (except for
very minor corrections).

/Phaeophyceae/ and /Phaeophyta/ are two separate names
(each with its own authorship), and each could be used in
any rank above that of family. That in practice these are
used in one rank only is a different matter: it is perfectly
allowed, but not in any way mandatory (there is not even
a recommendation on it).

Paul

On 31-Mar-23 20:46, Tony Rees wrote:
> Well, looking around at descriptive names that have been used at 
> different ranks for other botanical groups - algae in this instance 
> (not all names currently in use but that does not affect the 
> authorship), we seem to have:
>
> Green algae: class Chlorophyceae Wille, 1884 / division (phylum) 
> Chlorophyta Pascher, 1914
> Brown algae: class Phaeophyceae Kjellman, 1891 / division (phylum) 
> Phaeophyta Wettstein (?1901)
> Green algae: class Rhodophyceae Ruprecht, 1851 / division (phylum) 
> Rhodophyta Wettstein, 1901
>
> (authorities subject to confirmation)
>
> which seems to indicate that when used at a changed rank (and with a 
> new termination), a descriptive name above family requires new 
> authorship (and by inference, a published work to support that...)
>
> - Tony
>
>
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 21:28, Paul van Rijckevorsel via Taxacom 
> <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>     Well, as indicated, /Magnoliophyta/ (a name formed from
>     the generic name /Magnolia/) may be used in only one rank,
>     but the taxon so indicated may have any of a number of
>     circumscriptions.
>
>     Names like /Embryophyta/ and /Streptophyta/ (descriptive
>     names) may be used in any rank above that of family
>     (although it would be decidedly odd to use them as names
>     of orders or suborders), but the taxon indicated will have
>     a fixed circumscription. Thus in my view, these names
>     are the easier to use.
>
>     Then there are descriptive names that historically, but
>     not nomenclaturally, have been used as names for families,
>     like /Coniferae/, /Cupuliferae/, /Scitamineae/. These could be
>     awkward in a comprehensive database.
>
>     Paul
>
>     * * *
>
>
>


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avg.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C651a3bf345af44695b2508db3286e32f%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638159327164251651%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=btHpul6I00d6vMjGSg6iclQyLieafNZ0wHTUmRmylAQ%3D&reserved=0