Doweld • (2208–2209) Conserve Pocheina and Pocheinaceae
TAXON 62 (6) • December 2013: 1327–1328
PR O P O S A L S TO CO N S E R V E O R R E J E C T N A M E S Edited by John McNeill, Scott A. Redhead & John H. Wiersema
(2208–2209) Proposals to conserve the names Pocheina against Guttulina and Pocheinaceae against Guttulinaceae (Acrasiomycetes (Acrasiales) vel Acrasiea (Protista)) Alexander B. Doweld National Institute of Carpology (Gaertnerian Institution), 21 Konenkowa Street, 127560, Moscow, Russian Federation;
[email protected],
[email protected]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12705/626.19 (2208) Pocheina A.R. Loebl. & Tappan in J. Paleontol. 35: 256. 22 Mar 1961, nom. cons. prop. Typus: P. rosea (Cienk.) A.R. Loebl. & Tappan (Guttulina rosea Cienk.) (≡) Guttulina Cienk. in Levakovsky, Trudy IV Sjezda Russk. Estestvoispyt., Otd. Bot.: 11. Oct 1874, nom. rej. prop. (2209) Pocheinaceae A.R. Loebl. & Tappan in J. Paleontol. 35: 256. 22 Mar 1961 (‘Pocheinidae’), nom. cons. prop. Typus: Pocheina A.R. Loebl. & Tappan. (≡) Guttullinaceae Zopf in A. Schenk, Handb. Bot. 3(2): 712. 26 Mar 1888 (‘Guttulineae’), nom. rej. prop. Typus: Guttulina Cienk. The genus Guttulina was created by Cienkowski for a special ‘protoplasmatic’ organism, presumably belonging to Myxomycetes; at that time its systematic status was unclear. Later, however, the genus was definitely referred to this group of then lower plants (Van Tieghem in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 27: 317. 1880; Zopf in Schenk, Handb. Bot. 3(2): 132. 1884; Schroeter in Cohn, Krypt.-Fl. Schles. 3(1): 86. 1886; Berlese in Saccardo, Syll. Fung. 7: 451. 1888; Gobi in Bot. Zap. 16: 5. 1916; Schmidt in Engler, Syllabus, ed. 12, 1: 58. 1954), or was alternatively classified as myxamoebae of the protistan Mycetozoa (Doflein, Lehrb. Protozoenk., ed. 2: 587. 1909; Kudo, Handb. Protozool.: 190. 1931; Reichenow in Doflein, Lehrb. Protozoenk., ed. 5: 725. 3 Jan 1953 (‘1952’)). Since then, the genus has been simultaneously classified as belonging to the fungi and the protozoa, i.e., became a so-called ‘ambiregnal’ taxon. Loeblich & Tappan in their influential review of the classification of protistan rhizopods, realized that the name is a later homonym of the generic name Guttulina Orb. (in Sagra, Hist. Fis. Cuba, Moll. 1: 133. 1839) which was used earlier for a genus of protistan Foraminifera, and so changed the preoccupied name to Pocheina A.R. Loebl. & Tappan (l.c. 1961), continuing to consider it as a protist of Mycetozoa. Pocheina, being a correct generic name in (proto)zoology, became widely used by protistologists and some mycologists (Olive, Mycetozoans: 171. 1975; Page in Arch. Protistenk. 120: 69. 1978; Olive & al. in Mycologia 75: 1019. 1983; Kussakin & Drozdov, Filema Org. Mira 2: 106. 1998; Smirnov & Goodkov in Alimov, Protisty: 489. 2000; Dykstra & Keller in Lee & al., Illustr. Guide Protozoa, ed. 2: 957. 2002 (‘2000’); Mitchell in Syst. Geogr. Pl. 74: 261. 2004; Doweld, New Syll. Pl. Fam.: 67. 2005; Margulis & Chapman, Kingdoms & Domains: 134. 2009). Accordingly, the foraminiferal genus Guttulina is in active use in modern protistan systematics for a cosmopolitan organism ranging
from Jurassic to Holocene (Loeblich & Tappan, Foraminif. Gen. & Classif.: 419. 1988), and even became the base for a distinct subfamily Guttulininae Kusina (in Trudy Vsesoyuzn. Neft. Nauchno-Issl. Geol.Razv. Inst. Ser. 2, 343: 93. 1974) of the large and long established family Polymorphinidae Orb. (l.c.: xxxix, 126, 131. 1839). In this connection, because Guttulina is preoccupied in zoological but not botanical nomenclature, Pocheina is the correct name for this genus under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature but illegitimate (superfluous) in botanical nomenclature. Conservation would make Pocheina available in botany, thus bringing the two nomenclatures into harmony. Revised Art. 45.4 of ICN allows now the acceptance of originally validly published names in zoology when they were treated later as algae or fungi, and therefore Pocheina should be accepted as validly published for purposes of botanical nomenclature and be conserved. Since a distinct family name Pocheinidae was created by Loeblich & Tappan (l.c. 1961) to replace the previously established family name Guttulinaceae Zopf (l.c. 1888) that is “invalid” (i.e., incorrect) in zoological nomenclature, a formal proposal is advanced to conserve Pocheinaceae against its senior taxonomic synonym, Guttulinaceae. Proposed conservation of both Pocheina and Pocheinaceae brings the two nomenclatures into agreement and would make both names available as legitimate names in botanical classifications. In addition, to resolve the existing uncertainty with the dates of valid publication of the old names Guttulina and Guttulinaceae, special historic-bibliographic studies were undertaken. Cienkowski proposed the genus in his brief report on 26 August 1873 of the Section of Botany, Anatomy and Physiology of Plants of the 4th Congress of Russian Naturalists in Kazan’ (20–30 August 1873). The printed version of the separate Transactions (Trudy) of the Section was published in October 1874, which is confirmed by the receipt of the obligatorily copy of publication by the Directorate on Press Affairs (Upravlenie po delam pechati) of the Imperial Ministry of Internal Affairs in St.-Petersburg on 3–9 November (Old Style; 15–21 November, New Style) 1874 (Ukazatel’ po delam pechati za 1874: 308. 1874). In this connection, later often cited date such as ‘1875’ (when the cumulative volume of Transactions of all sections of Congress was printed) is an error. The work of Batalin, who published excerpts from the Congress transactions in German with Cienkowski’s description of Guttulina (in Just’s Bot. Jahresber. 1: 61. 1874), was published in Germany on 2 November 1874, which is confirmed by the receipt of the edition (Jahrgang 1, Halbband 1) for obligatorily registrations of all newly published books and serials in Germany (Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel, 1874 (no. 253, S. 4033)); it was published at a
Version of Record (identical to print version).
1327
Braun • (2210–2232) Conserve Blumeria and 22 powdery mildew species names
later date, and though often cited in synonymies or even regarded as a first place of valid publication of Guttulina, should be disregarded. The family name Guttulinaceae with inadmissible German ending ‘Guttulineen’ was invalidly published by Zopf (in Schenk, Handb. Bot. 3(2): 132. 2 Dec 1884 (‘1885’, title page year)); however, being cited in permissible Latin form, Guttulineae, in the index to the whole volume of Handbuch der Botanik was issued at a later date (26 Mar 1888), the family name became validly published and this place of its validation should be accepted as such (precise dates of Handbuch Lieferungen were extracted from the corresponding daily
1328
TAXON 62 (6) • December 2013: 1328–1331
lists of newly published books in Germany from Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel: Lieferung 41 [Handbuch der Botanik, Liefe rung 16]: no. 280, p. 5745, 2 Dec 1884) and Lieferung 55 [Handbuch der Botanik, Lieferung 21]: no. 70, p. 1527, 26 Mar 1888). Acknowledgements It is a pleasure to thank Valentina Bublik (Fundamental Botanical Library of the National Institute of Carpology, Moscow) for bibliographic and archive searches of the publication dates of botanical literature.
Version of Record (identical to print version).
