Doweld • (2285–2286) Conserve Umbellina and Umbellinaceae
TAXON 63 (2) • April 2014: 441–442
(2285–2286) Proposals to conserve the names Umbellina against Umbella and Umbellinaceae against Umbellaceae (fossil Charophyta) 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/10.12705/632.38
(2285) Umbellina A.R. Loebl. & Tappan in J. Paleontol. 35: 284. 22 Mar 1961, nom. cons. prop. Typus: U. bella (V.P. Maslov) A.R. Loebl. & Tappan (U. bella V.P. Maslov) (≡) Umbella V.P. Maslov in Trudy Vsesoyuzn. Neft. NauchnoIssl. Geol.-Razved. Inst., ser. 2, 87: 37. 12 Jan 1956 (‘1955’), nom. rej. prop. (2286) Umbellinaceae Tappan, Paleobiol. Pl. Protists: 955. 29 Oct 1980, nom. cons. prop. Typus: Umbellina A.R. Loebl. & Tappan, nom. cons. prop. (≡) Umbellaceae Pojarkov in Dokl. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 163: 730. 21 Jul 1965, nom. rej. prop. Typus: Umbella V.P. Maslov, nom. rej. prop. The fossil genus of problematic charophyte algae Umbellina A.R. Loebl. & Tappan (in J. Paleontol. 35: 284. 22 Mar 1961) was originally described as a Devonian protistan foraminifer under the name Umbella by Maslov (in Trudy Vsesoyuzn. Neft. Nauchno-Issl. Geol.Razved. Inst., ser. 2, 87: 37. 12 Jan 1956) and now comprises more than 20 species widely distributed in the Middle-Upper Devonian/Lower Carboniferous strata (Reitlinger in Trudy Geol. Inst. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 143: 213. 1966; Platonov in Paleontol. Zhurn. 1974(1): 102. 1974; Berchenko, Izvestk. Vodor. Turn. Otlozh. Donbassa: 34. 1981 & in Trudy Inst. Geol. Geofiz. Sibirsk. Otdel. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 674: 148. 1987). Loeblich & Tappan (l.c. 1961) in their influential compilation of the classification of fossil and extant rhizopods, realized that Maslov’s generic name is a later homonym of Umbella d’Orb. (in Sagra, Hist. Cuba, Moll. 1: 115. 1841), used earlier for a genus of Mollusca, and so changed the preoccupied fossil name to Umbellina A.R. Loebl. & Tappan, continuing to consider it as a foraminifer of the family Nodosinellidae Rhumbl. (Foraminifera). However, at the same time the Russian palaeontologist MicluchoMaclay (in Dokl. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 138: 541. 1961) advanced a revolutionary interpretation of these enigmatic fossils as gyrogonites of some extinct Devonian charophytes (thought presumably related to Trochiliscales), and since then Umbellina has been considered to be a fossil algal taxon. The number of supporters of the algal hypothesis has greatly increased (Pojarkov in Paleontol. Zhurn. 1964(1): 144. 1964 & in Dokl. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 163: 730. 21 Jul 1965; Reitlinger, l.c.; Maslov in Trudy Geol. Inst. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 143: 221. 1966; Mamet in Canad. J. Earth Sci. 7: 1164. 1970 & 8: 174. 1971; Bilan & Golonka in Acta Geol. Polon. 23: 149. 1973; Tchuvashov in Trudy Inst. Geol. Geokhim. Ural’sk. Nauchn. Centr. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 99: 36. 1973; Berchenko, l.c. 1981 & l.c. 1987; Loeblich & Tappan, Foraminif. Gen. Classif.: 730. 1988; Roux in Riding, Calcar. Algae & Stromat.: 365. 1991; Feist & al. in Amer. J. Bot. 92: 1152. 2005) in contrast to those other students of these fossil forms who continued
sceptically to point to some resemblance with protistan Foraminifera and excluded them from Charophyta as “microproblematica” (Konoplina in Trudy Inst. Geol. Nauk Akad. Nauk Ukr. S.S.R., Ser. Stratigr. Paleontol. 26: 338. 1959; Ozonkowa in Roczn. Polsk. Towarz. Geol. 32: 110. 1962; Conil in Bull. Soc. Belge Géol. 75: 165. 1966; Peck, in J. Paleontol. 48: 409. 1974; Riding in Flügel, Foss. Algae: 206. 1977; Feist & Grambast-Fessard in Kaesler, Treat. Invertebr. Paleontol. 1B: 146. 2005). Nevertheless, the genus has remained among fossil taxa of uncertain or questionable affinity (microproblematica), because there were still some doubts on their exact relationships with charophytic algae due to their imperfect preservation and differences in wall structure from putative gyrogonites (Peck, l.c.). At the present time these fossils are treated as a distinct extinct order Umbellinales Doweld (New Syll. Pl. Fam.: 119. 2005) and family Umbellinaceae Tappan (Paleobiol. Pl. Protists: 955. 29 Oct. 1980), placing them as incertae sedis in the subclass Primocharophycidae Doweld (l.c.). In this connection, because Umbella is preoccupied in zoological but not botanical nomenclature, Umbellina is the correct name for this genus under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, but illegitimate and superfluous in botanical nomenclature. Conservation would make Umbellina the name to be used in botany, also, thus bringing the two systems of nomenclature into agreement. In addition, a distinct zoological subfamily was established to receive the junior homonym Umbella: Lagenidae subfam. Umbellinae Furssenko (in Orlov, Osnovy Paleontol. [1]: 248–249. 23 Jun 1959) (“invalid” under Art. 39 of the ICZN, Ride & al., Int. Code Zool. Nomencl., ed. 4. 1999 & http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn /code/) and then the botanical family name Umbellaceae Pojarkov (l.c. 1965: 730 & in Trudy Geol. Inst. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 143: 177. 1966), validated with a description in Russian and treated as a family of fossil charophyceans. The “invalid” zoological subfamily name was changed later to the new “potentially valid” subfamily name Umbellininae A.R. Loebl. & Tappan (l.c. 1961: 284), and this name was accepted by subsequent researchers (Ozonkowa, l.c.; Mamet, l.c.). When these fossils were treated as fossil charophycean algae, on the basis of the zoological replacement generic name Umbellina, a new botanical family “Umbellinaceae” was proposed by Bilan & Golonka (l.c.: 149) but without a validating description. Umbellinaceae was later validated by a description in English by Tappan (l.c.: 955) and this has remained in current use instead of the legitimate, but thought to be “invalid”, family name Umbellaceae Pojarkov. The lack of clear rules in botanical Codes prior to the Vienna Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006) for the treatment of suprageneric names generated in accord with the “Principle of Coordination” in zoological nomenclature (ICZN, Art. 36.1), led to researchers commonly using family names, either derived from Umbella or Umbellina, with the authorship of the first validly published nominal taxon of the zoological family-group as: “Umbellaceae Furssenko, 1959” (although Furssenko (l.c.) proposed only the zoological subfamily name, Umbellinae, not any family name) (Pojarkov, l.c. 1965 & l.c.
Version of Record (identical to print version).
441
Doweld • (2287) Conserve Asterocalamites
TAXON 63 (2) • April 2014: 442–444
1966; Berchenko in Geol. Zhurn. 34(2): 104. 1974 & l.c. 1981: 22; Platonov, l.c.) or “Umbellinaceae A.R. Loebl. & Tappan 1961” (although Loeblich & Tappan (l.c. 1961) used only the zoological subfamily name Umbellininae) (Bilan & Golonka, l.c.; Tappan, l.c.). The new wording introduced in Vienna (now Art. 45.1 of ICN, McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) made clear that only if a name generated in accord with the Principle of Coordination of the ICZN actually appeared in a publication was it validly published under the ICN. In the case of names based on Umbella or Umbellina this is in contradiction with the established custom by which authors commonly adopted the first former zoological nominal name of the family-group and kept its authorship and place of its first valid (“available”) publication in accord with the principle of coordination applied to family-groups in zoological nomenclature. Such an approach, used over a long time by specialists in this group, allowed the nomenclature of problematic fossils to be mirrored under each Code with only changes in the endings for suprageneric names, but no change in authorship, or date and place of first valid publication (availability). Although it seems sensible and to be expected that the authorships and the places of validation of names of ambiregnal taxa should remain the same, despite being governed by different Codes this is not possible under Art. 45.1 (final sentence) of the ICN. Even to maintain the same basis for the family name, albeit with different authorship, it is necessary to conserve the botanical family name Umbellinaceae, based on Umbellina, superfluous and illegitimate in botany, but not in zoology, against the legitimate but “invalid” family name Umbellaceae Pojarkov, based
on Umbella V.P. Maslov non C. d’Orb., a junior homonym under the ICZN, but the correct name under the ICN. Precise dates of publication of Maslov’s and Furssenko’s works, supplementing the information in Taxonomic Literature ed. 2, were extracted from the print archive of the Russian Book Chamber, served as a governmental authority for obligatory (immediately after their publication) bibliographic registration of all newly published print materials in the former Soviet Union and now in the Russian Federation (Maslov: Record of State Registration [Лист государственной регистрации] no. 9 from 12 Jan 1956; Furssenko: Record of State Registration [Лист государственной регистрации] no. 785 from 23 Jun 1959). The date of publication of Tappan’s monograph was obtained from the archive records of its Publishers, Freeman & Co., now kept in the U.S. Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, Washington. 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 Russian botanical literature. Special thanks go to Mrs. Constance Carter (Library of Congress, Science Division) for kindly providing the publication date for Tappan’s Paleobiology of Plant Protists. The research is a contribution to the Palaeoflora of Russia (Palaeoflora Rossica) Project (NOM-10-1912).
442
Version of Record (identical to print version).
