Taxacom: Calcisphaera Williamson, 1880 - microfossil incertae sedis (Calcitarcha) or charophyte?

Fri Aug 15 13:14:12 CDT 2025

Thanks, Paul. If this is indeed the case - and I have not missed anything
else pertinent in the Code that would suggest otherwise e.g. for fossil
taxa - then the AlgaeBase interpretation is correct, even though its cited
source says the opposite... I will add a relevant explanation in IRMNG.

Regards - Tony
Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7ffa47ccf3da42ead3ac08dddc279286%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908784693865447%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ARW7HbDcFfJKmbDQbctp2aclDvlMkEGLmZtneN5Dlkg%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7ffa47ccf3da42ead3ac08dddc279286%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908784693905471%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NRbhk1aHwWe0k%2BFn%2FABxuqUCwR7QVh9KM1335jHUGYg%3D&reserved=0

On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 at 18:07, Paul van Rijckevorsel via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> This appears to be eminently simple. The Preamble of
> the ICNafp states: "This edition of the /Code/ supersedes
> all previous editions." So if the type designation by Miller
> meets the requirements for that action under the ICNafp,
> it will have priority over whatever Williams did.
>
> Paul
>
> On 15/08/2025 08:13, Tony Rees via Taxacom wrote:
> > For completeness, Miller's designation of robusta as the type is
> available
> > here:
> > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F53798805&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7ffa47ccf3da42ead3ac08dddc279286%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908784693925635%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4N6SI6SLbiNJWGoWg2gKUKn14Su8iDALyHGavtV1nuo%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > With hindsight (though probably of no nomenclatural significance) this
> > would seem possibly to be because robusta was the only species described
> > from North America (the scope of Miller's book); Williamson admitted this
> > species to his genus on being sent some material, at the end of his
> > description of the specimens he himself had collected, on which the
> > remainder of the genus was based, which were from Wales.
> >
> > Williamson wrote:
> > "I would call attention to some specimens, myriads of which constitute
> > almost the mass of a ? Corniferous limestone? from the Devonian beds of
> > Kelly?s Island, U.S.A., for specimens of which I am indebted to Mr.
> Brady,
> > and which we both believe to be closely related to the Welsh organisms
> > ... Occasionally these ridges may be seen pursuing an oblique direction
> > like the bands crossing the nucules of a Chara ... Though the sphere-wall
> > often exhibits a granular texture, I discover a radiating structure in a
> > sufficient number of the specimens to convince me that, in this respect,
> > they have closely resembled some of the Welsh objects. Since I cannot
> learn
> > that this American form has received a name, it may be designated
> > Calcisphaera robusta."
> >
> > So the only one from North America, that also had some features of a
> > charophyte, became Miller's type, leaving the others potentially
> > misclassified...
> >
> > - Tony
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 at 15:51, Tony Rees via Taxacom<taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I am seeking an answer as to whether the calcified microscopic fossil
> genus
> >> Calcisphaera Williamson, 1880 (treated mainly as a botanical form)
> should
> >> be treated as a microfossil incertae sedis (Calcitarcha) or assigned to
> >> charophyta (as representing a charophyte spore aka gyrogonite).
> Williamson,
> >> 1880 originally assigned 7 species to the genus but failed to designate
> a
> >> type; of these, C. laevis (and possibly all of the others but one) is
> today
> >> considered a calcisphere microfossil in the group Calcitarcha, while C.
> >> robusta is considered a charophyte spore. The correct assignment of the
> >> genus therefore turns on which species is considered the type.
> >>
> >> Andrews (1955 and 1970) in "Index of Generic Names of Fossil Plants"
> gives
> >> the type as C. laevis, however Index Nominum Genericorum gives the type
> as
> >> C. robusta following Miller, 1889 who designated that species as the
> >> lectotype. Apparently Andrews' designation (which was subsequently
> >> supported by Peck & Morales, 1966 and Grambast-Fessard et al., 1989)
> >> followed "Article PB. 4 of the [then current] International Code of
> >> Botanical Nomenclature" which states: "The type of a genus of fossil
> plants
> >> is the first described species which shows such characters as are
> necessary
> >> for distinguishing the genus from other taxa."" (that text from Peck &
> >> Morales, 1966), thus according to that logic, Miller's designation of C.
> >> robusta as the type was not only unnecessary but invalid.
> >>
> >> However subsequently Samoilova, 1985, in a proposal to Taxon, recognised
> >> Miller's designation of C. robusta as the type and treated Calcisphaera
> as
> >> a charophyte genus, with apparent priority over another genus,
> Trochiliscus
> >> Karpinsky, 1906, if the two genera are treated as synonymous. Bu in a
> >> response to that proposal, Grambast-Fessard et al., 1989 stated: "The
> taxon
> >> Calcisphaera has not been retained [in Charophyta] as it includes
> species
> >> belonging to distinct taxonomic units; the first one described, C.
> laevis,
> >> designated as the type species, is not a charophyte but belongs to the
> >> animal kingdom (Peck and Morales, 1966: 314)."
> >>
> >> Later, Versteegh et al., 2009, on formally proposing the group
> Calcitarcha,
> >> noted the earliest forms to be those described by Williamson, 1880
> >> as Calcisphaera, and included that genus name in their list of
> Calcitarcha
> >> genera without further comment regarding its typification.
> >>
> >> Currently AlgaeBase offers a confused statement: it recognises
> Calcisphaera
> >> as a charophyte, with C. robusta as type species, but references
> >> Grambast-Fessard et al., 1989 as the most recent treatment followed (in
> >> fact as stated above, those authors state the exact opposite).
> >>
> >> So the question arises, does the current (or perhaps even a former)
> >> botanical Code support Peck & Morales, 1966 assertion that in fossil
> plants
> >> where no type is selected, the first mentioned species automatically
> >> becomes the type? That statement appears to originate in the Paris Code
> >> (1956), probably also in the 1952 Code, which indeed states:
> >> "Article PB. 4. The type of a genus of fossil plants is the first
> described
> >> species which shows such characters as are necessary for distinguishing
> the
> >> genus from other taxa. The type of a species of fossil plants is the
> first
> >> described and figured specimen showing such characters as are necessary
> for
> >> distinguishing the species from other species." (
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iapt-taxon.org%2Fhistoric%2F1956.htm&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7ffa47ccf3da42ead3ac08dddc279286%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908784693946717%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdataâ8L%2F1g6vni95q%2B5SEDljkygb3ledRFX6mcHumekAH4%3D&reserved=0)
> >>
> >> So Andrews in 1955 would (according to my reading) be correct in using
> C.
> >> laevis as the tye species and ignoring Miller's subsequent designation
> of
> >> C. robusta.
> >>
> >> However I am not sure that is the situation today; the current ICNafp
> does
> >> not seem to contain this Article or wording; the nearest I can find
> (which
> >> is not specifically dealing with fossil plants is:
> >> 10.5. The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and F.5.4) a
> type
> >> of a name of a genus or subdivision of a genus must be followed, but the
> >> choice may be superseded if the author used a largely mechanical method
> of
> >> selection (Art. 10.6). A type chosen using a largely mechanical method
> of
> >> selection is superseded by any later choice of a different type not made
> >> using such a method, unless, in the interval, the supersedable choice
> has
> >> been affirmed by its adoption in a publication that did not use a
> >> mechanical method of selection.
> >>
> >> (A "mechanical method of selection" appears to comprise taking the first
> >> species listed).
> >>
> >> So where does this leave us? Is C. laevis or C. robusta the correct type
> >> for this genus, and accordingly, is it to be treated as Calcitarcha or
> >> Charophyta? (If indeed it is to be placed as a charophyte, then C.
> laevis
> >> and other similar species would require a new generic name in order to
> be
> >> placed in the Calcitarcha).
> >>
> >> Your answers appreciated,
> >>
> >> Regards - Tony Rees, Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7ffa47ccf3da42ead3ac08dddc279286%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908784693967734%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UnDRFuGmc4rYKNyk2nFfHcamWZHE2eiQf6XK9ynGLN4%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >> References in chronological order:
> >>
> >> Williamson, W.C. (1880). On the organization of the fossil plants of the
> >> coal-measures.?Part X. Including an examination of the supposed
> >> radiolarians of the carboniferous rocks. Philosophical transactions of
> the
> >> Royal Society of London 171(2): 493-539, plates 14-21.
> >> Available at
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Froyalsocietypublishing.org%2Fdoi%2Fepdf%2F10.1098%2Frstl.1880.0014&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7ffa47ccf3da42ead3ac08dddc279286%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908784693990314%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4H4yJNfykmGSSjTxuQtOtOcZyq9dKHz1naAtNF0RNgs%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> Miller, S.A. (1889). North American geology and palaeontology for the
> use
> >> of amateurs, students, and scientists. pp. 664, 1194 figures.
> Cincinnati:
> >> Western Methodist Book Concern.
> >>
> >> Andrews, H.N. (1955). Index of generic names of fossil plants,
> 1820?1950.
> >> U.S.. Geological Survey Bulletin 1013: 1?262
> >>
> >> Peck, R.E. and Morales, G.A. (1966). The Devonian and Lower
> Mississippian
> >> charophytes of North America. Micropaleontology, 12(3), pp.303-324.
> >> doi:10.2307/1484549
> >>
> >> R. B. Samoilova (1985). (781) Proposal to Conserve Trochiliscus against
> >> Calcisphaeria and Moellerina (Fossil, Trochiliscaceae). Taxon, 34(1),
> >> 157?158. doi:10.2307/1221585
> >>
> >> N. Grambast-Fessard, M. Feist and Z. Wang. (1989). Concerning Rejected
> >> Proposal 781 to Conserve Trochiliscus (Fossil Charophyta). Taxon, 38(4),
> >> 641?643. doi:10.2307/1222654
> >>
> >> Versteegh, G.J., Servais, T., Streng, M., Munnecke, A. and Vachard, D.
> >> (2009). A discussion and proposal concerning the use of the term
> >> calcispheres. *Palaeontology*, *52*(2), pp.343-348.
> >>   doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2009.00854.x
> >>
> >> AlgaeBase (2025). Calcisphaera W.C. Wiiliamson, 1880:
> >> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.algaebase.org%2Fsearch%2Fgenus%2Fdetail%2F%3Fgenus_id%3D53072&data%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C7ffa47ccf3da42ead3ac08dddc279286%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638908784694016791%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Kvj%2FLAqBvfG1g1L4ZRTuUNttIERJKx4PpdPEQeEHqk4%3D&reserved=0
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Taxacom Mailing List
> >>
> >> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for 38 years, 1987-2025.
>
> 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
>
>
>