Doweld • (2560) Conserve Umkomasiaceae
TAXON 66 (5) • October 2017: 1231–1232
(2560) Proposal to conserve the name Umkomasiaceae against Zuberiaceae (fossil Peltaspermophyta: Umkomasiales) Alexander B. Doweld The International Fossil Plant Names Index, National Institute of Carpology (Gaertnerian Institution), 21 Konenkova Street, 127560, Moscow, Russian Federation;
[email protected] DOI https://doi.org/10.12705/665.27
(2560) Umkomasiaceae Petriella in Ameghiniana 18: 223. 15 Mai 1982 [Gymnosp.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: Umkomasia H.H. Thomas. (=) Zuberiaceae Němejc, Paleobotanika 3: 119. Jul 1968, nom. rej. prop. Typus: Zuberia Freng. The fossil-family Umkomasiaceae Petriella (l.c.) was originally established for the distinctive Gondwanan Mesozoic gymnosperms, based on the fossil-genus Umkomasia H.H. Thomas (in Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 45: 663. 1931), which was established for detached peculiar reproductive organs. Initially these fossils were separated into a distinct fossil-family “Corystospermaceae” (Thomas in Philos. Trans., Ser. B 222: 199. 31 Mai 1933), which was a descriptive family name, i.e., not based on a validly published fossil-generic name. As descriptive family names are proscribed by the Code (Art. 18.1 of the ICN, McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012), Petriella (l.c.) proposed to validate the fossil-family name Umkomasiaceae based on the included fossil-genus for fructifications. Although being proposed by Petriella as an alternative family name in the sense of Art. 18.5 of the ICN, Umkomasiaceae was indeed validly published as it does not infringe Art. 36.2 prohibiting alternative names proposed simultaneously, even as amended at the XIX IBC in Shenzhen to apply to names accepted (and not just proposed) simultaneously (Turland & al. in Taxon 66: 1245. 2017), because the “name”, to which it was an alternative, was
not validly published. Since the descriptive family name “Corystospermaceae” was used for over 50 years (“uso generalizado a través de casi 50 años”), Petriella (l.c.) also proposed to conserve this descriptive name analogous with other descriptive names for extant plants listed in Art. 18.5 (Compositae [nom. alt.: Asteraceae; type: Aster L.]; Cruciferae [nom. alt.: Brassicaceae; type: Brassica L.]; etc.). However, this formal proposal was never formally submitted to the General Committee by means of publication in Taxon, and was never seriously discussed in the palaeobotanical community, which was inclined to simply accept the new denomination Umkomasiaceae. Since the list of descriptive family names authorized under Art. 18.6 goes back to Candolle’s Lois and has never been widened (with even a proposal, albeit unsuccessful, to delete this long-standing exception to the general rules: Alfarhan & al. in Taxon 59: 656. 2010), I consider the idea to conserve “Corystospermaceae” as an alternative name superfluous and inappropriate due to the wide and continued usage of Umkomasiaceae since 1982. However, Petriella (l.c.) overlooked the fact that Němejc (l.c.) had previously published another fossil-family name, Zuberiaceae, for this group of plant fossils based on the fossil-genus of dispersed fossil foliage, Zuberia Freng. (in Revista Mus. La Plata, Secc. Paleontol., ser. 2, 2: 308. 1943), found in association with fructifications of the Umkomasia-type. Frenguelli (l.c. 1943 & in Anales Mus. La Plata, B 1: 1–30. 1944) originally defined the genus Zuberia on the external morphology of pinnae of large forked bipinnate fronds; however,
Version of Record
1231
Doweld • (2560) Conserve Umkomasiaceae
TAXON 66 (5) • October 2017: 1231–1232
there are no obvious reasons to differentiate Zuberia from Dicroidium Gothan (in Abh. Naturhist. Ges. Nürnberg 19: 77. 1912) as the morphology of pinnules and venation are identical. In addition, based on leaf cuticular studies Townrow (in Trans. Geol. Soc. South Africa 60: 21. 1957) concluded that Zuberia is in fact a Dicroidium since their cuticles were closely similar and their separation is scarcely possible. Later Bonetti (in Ameghiniana 4: 389. 1966) placed all four species of Frenguelli’s Zuberia in a single leaf fossil-species Dicroidium feistmantelii (R.M. Johnst.) Gothan, but Archangelsky (in Palaeontology 11: 501. 1968) preferred to unite them as a separate fossil-species, Dicroidium zuberi (Szajnocha) S. Archang., which is accepted now (Anderson & Anderson, Palaeofl. S. Africa 1: 73. 1983). Thus, the synonymic status of Zuberia to Dicroidium explained its absence from the list of fossil-genera included into “Corystospermaceae” by Petriella (l.c.) that comprised: ovulate organs Umkomasia, Pilophorosperma H.H. Thomas (l.c. 1933: 207), Spermatocodon H.H. Thomas (l.c. 1933: 225), and Karibacarpon Lacey (in Arnoldia (Salisbury) 7(36): 8. 1976); pollen-bearing organs Pteruchus H.H. Thomas (l.c. 1933: 233) and Pteroma T.M. Harris (Yorkshire Jurass. Fl. 2: 170. 1964); fossil foliage Dicroidium, Xylopteris Freng. (l.c. 1943: 324), Johnstonia Walkom (in Pap. & Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasmania 1924: 79. 1925) and Pachypteris Brongn. (Prodr. Hist. Vég. Foss.: 49. 1828); and fossil stems Rhexoxylon Bancr. (in Trans. Linn. Soc. London, Bot. 8: 100. 1913). Therefore, sound evidence for the distinct status of Zuberiaceae apart from Umkomasiaceae, as once suggested by Takhtajan (Probl. Paleobot.: 141. 1987 (“1986”)), is lacking, since Zuberia was already solidly subsumed into synonymy of accepted fossil foliage genus Dicroidium. As Zuberiaceae has priority over Umkomasiaceae, it should be used instead of the latter name. But the current practice in systematic palaeobotany is quite different: Zuberiaceae, once proposed, was not taken up by subsequent
1232
researchers (except for Takhtajan, l.c.) and therefore has now fallen into oblivion. In contrast, Umkomasiaceae, along with its higher- ranked counterpart, the fossil-order name Umkomasiales Doweld (Prosyllabus: xvi. 2001) (validated instead of the descriptive order name Corystospermales Němejc, l.c.: 119), are in active current use in modern systematic treatises (Takhtajan, l.c.; Doweld, l.c.; Anderson & Anderson in Strelitzia 20: 182. 2007; The International Fossil Plant Names Index, 2014– [http://fossilplants.info/]; Pattemore in Acta Palaeobot. 56: 19. 2016; Herrera & al. in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114: E2389. 2017; etc.). In order to maintain stability in palaeobotanical systematics of Mesozoic gymnosperms and to discourage the use of a forgotten family name, it is proposed to conserve Umkomasiaceae Petriella (1981) against Zuberiaceae Němejc (1968). The precise publication date of Němejc’s Paleobotanika, vol. 3, Systematická část: Rostliny nahosemenné (1968), supplementing available files of the publication dates of Taxonomic literature II, was received in litteris from the archive of publishing of the Academia Publishers (formerly Nakladatelství Československé Akademie Věd), Prague, Czech Republic (which is e-published in the Taxonomic Literature World Database of the International Fossil Plant Names Index [IFPNI, http://fossilplants.info/publications/7B75E704-3707423A-A58A-F1811F5F6067]). Acknowledgements I thank John McNeill for very helpful criticism and suggestions on the initial draft. The research is a contribution to the Palaeoflora Europaea Project, Palaeoflora of Russia (Palaeoflora Rossica) Project (NOM-17-129) and The International Fossil Plant Names Index (IFPNI, http://fossilplants.info/).
Version of Record
