Report of the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils: 10 - IngentaConnect

16 downloads 0 Views 726KB Size Report
against Ulmus laciniata Göpp. (fossil Ulmaceae), and Viburnum betulifolium Batalin (Adoxaceae) against V. betulifolium Ward (fossil. Adoxaceae). The following ...
Herendeen • Report of the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils

TAXON 65 (2) • April 2016: 382–387

Report of the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils: 10 Patrick S. Herendeen Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000 Lake Cook Road, Glencoe, Illinois 60022, U.S.A.; [email protected] DOI  http://dx.doi.org/10.12705/652.18 Summary  The following two family names are recommended for conservation: Umbellinaceae against Umbellaceae, and Vojnovsky­aceae against Dolerophyllaceae and Nephropsidaceae. The following seven generic names are recommended for conservation: Discoaster against Eu-discoaster, Helio-discoaster and Hemi-discoaster, Frenelopsis against Aularthrophyton, Polypodiisporites with that spelling against Polypodii-sporonites, Psaronius against Scitaminites, Spinosisporites against Spinosella, Todites against Acrostichites and Germaria, and Umbellina against Umbella. The following three species names are also recommended for conservation: Pecopteris williamsonis (Todites williamsonis) against P. curtata, P. hastata, and P. recentior, Ulmus laciniata Mayr ex Schwapp. (Ulmaceae) against Ulmus laciniata Göpp. (fossil Ulmaceae), and Viburnum betulifolium Batalin (Adoxaceae) against V. betulifolium Ward (fossil Adoxaceae). The following twelve generic names are not recommended for conservation: Aphanozonatisporites against Chroococcites, Dictyophis, Rhizostaemis and Triletes, Aphlebia against Schizopteris, Asterocalamites against Archaeocalamites and Stigmatocanna, Calamodendron against Calamitea, Cladophlebis with a conserved type, Cordaicladus against Palaeopteris, Crassinervia against Dolerophyllum, Dadoxylon with a conserved type against Megadendron, Heliodiscoaster and Hemidiscoaster with those spellings, Pitys, nom. cons. against Pinites, and Taeniopteris with a conserved type. The following three species names are not recommended for conservation: Pecopteris denticulata (Cladophlebis denticulata) against Pecopteris ligata, Sphenopteris princeps (Todites princeps) against Alethopteris imbricata, Pecopteris athyroides, and Germaria elymiformis, and Taeniopteris vittata with a conserved type. The committee judged the names Sycidium and Sykidion to be not confusable.

The Nomenclature Committee for Fossil Plants comprises the following 14 members: M.J. Head (Canada) Chair, P.S. Herendeen (U.S.A.) Secretary, H. Anderson (South Africa), D.J. Batten (U.K.), D. Cantrill (Australia), C.J. Cleal (U.K.), S. Feist-Burkhardt (Switzerland), R.A. Fensome (Canada), C. Jaramillo (Panama), J. Kvaček (Czech Republic), S. McLaughlin (Sweden), J.E. Skog (U.S.A.), M. Takahashi (Japan), and R. Wicander (U.S.A.). The previous report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fossil Plants appeared in Taxon 64: 1306. 2015. The Committee has established a policy that Committee members who are authors of proposals may provide comments and respond to queries, but do not vote on their own proposals. Thus, in this report I specify numbers of votes in favor, opposed, and abstentions (including any committee member not responding). Where a member of the Committee was ineligible to vote by being an author of a proposal, this is noted in the listing of the votes on that proposal. In addition I provide the percentage for the majority vote based on the number of Committee members minus any disqualified from voting. The Nomenclature Committee on Fossils has considered 27 proposals for conservation since the previous report (Taxon 64: 1306. 2015). Comments and votes on all 27 proposals are reported here. In addition the committee was requested to evaluate one case of potentially confusable names. Proposals to conserve or reject names

(2242)  Proposal to conserve the name Calamodendron against Calamitea (fossil Equisetophyta: Calamitopsida). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 62: 1340–1341. 2013. Votes: 1–13–0, 93% against (not recommended). The generic name Calamodendron Brongniart has been used for permineralized sphenopsid trunks. However, the name Calamitea Cotta predates Calamodendron and is the correct name to be used for these fossils. According to the proposal Brongniart proposed the new name Calamodendron in part to avoid potential confusion between Calamitea Cotta and the distinct genus Calamites Brongniart. The

382

author proposes conservation of the name Calamodendron against Calamitea to preserve current usage. However, in the opinion of the committee the name Calamodendron is not in wide use and we do not view Calamitea and Calamites as parahomonyms. Furthermore, Röβler & Noll (in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 144: 157. 2007) recently published a taxonomic treatment of Calamitea and explained why this name must replace Calamodendron. For these reasons the committee voted with a 93% majority to reject the proposal. (2243)  Proposal to conserve the name Psaronius against Scitaminites (fossil Pteridophyta: Marattiopsida). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 62: 1342–1342. 2013. Votes: 14–0–0, 100% in favor (recommended). The generic name Psaronius Cotta is well known and widely used for Carboniferous age permineralized fossil stems of marattialean ferns. In addition, the generic name provides the type of the name of a distinct fossil family Psaroniaceae F. Unger. However, Psaronius is predated by the name Scitaminites Sternb. The proposal notes that this problem has been known for many years but due to the widespread use of the name Psaronius the older name was never adopted. The committee agrees with Doweld that the name Psaronius is very important and it would be very disruptive to lose this name. Therefore the Committee voted unanimously to support the proposal. (2244–2245)  Proposals to conserve the names Cladophlebis with a conserved type and Pecopteris denticulata (Cladophlebis denticulata) against P. ligata (fossil Pteridophyta: Osmundopsida). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 62: 1343–1345. 2013. 2244: Votes: 0–14–0, 100% against (not recommended); 2245: 0–13–1, 93% against (not recommended). This is a very complicated and confusing proposal with several unresolved questions that must be clarified before the committee can recommend acceptance of a conservation proposal. While the committee was in agreement that the genus name is important and needs to be conserved, the committee does not agree with the selection of

Version of Record

Herendeen • Report of the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils

TAXON 65 (2) • April 2016: 382–387

the new type proposed by Doweld. In addition the proposal seems to contain extraneous and/or erroneous information that only serves to confuse the case. Doweld notes a previous proposal to conserve Cladophlebis by Lowther (in Taxon 7: 234–235. 1958) that was left undecided by the committee at that time because a new type for the conserved genus was not specified. However, the Lowther proposal seeks to conserve “Cladophlebis Seward” over Cladophlebis Brongn. but as far as we are aware Seward never aimed to publish the name Cladophlebis. Doweld does not address this apparent error in his proposal. The generic name Cladophlebis Brongn. was established in 1849 for sterile fossil fern leaves of Mesozoic age. The genus was based on Pecopteris sect. Neuropteroides Brongn. with Pecopteris defrancei Brongn. as the type. However, Pecopteris defrancei is now treated as a Carboniferous pteridosperm, thus Cladophlebis needs to be conserved with a new type. In proposing a new type Doweld indicates that it should be a species that is referable to the Osmundaceae. However, traditional use of the name Cladophlebis is for fossil fern foliage that is not identifiable to family. Thus the committee does not support the proposal of C. denticulata as the conserved type. Instead the committee favors Cladophlebis albertsii (Dunker) Brongn. as the type. Accepting Doweld’s proposal to conserve with C. denticulata as type would presumably result in Cladophlebis being treated as a taxonomic synonym of Todites (see next proposal), resulting in the suppression of the latter widely used name. Doweld rejected C. albertsii as the new type because it is fragmentary, poorly preserved and lacks evidence of fertile structures, but the committee suggests this is a benefit not a drawback. Cladophlebis is a genus that is generally used for species that lack evidence of fertile structures and therefore is not referable to a particular family. Thus selecting a type that is unlikely to provide such evidence should help ensure the stability of use for such a fossil-genus. Doweld also seems to reject C. albertsii on the basis of age as he asserts most species are Jurassic whereas this taxon is of Cretaceous age. However, this argument is flawed because the genus ranges from Triassic through to Cretaceous and there is no justification for the type to be of Jurassic age. Given these considerations the committee voted unanimously to reject Prop. 2244 and with a 93% majority to reject Prop. 2245. While the committee supports the conservation of Cladophlebis, a new proposal will be required. (2246–2247)  Proposals to conserve the names Todites against Acrostichites and Germaria, and Pecopteris williamsonis (Todites williamsonis) against P. curtata, P. hastata, and P. recentior (fossil Pteridophyta: Osmundopsida). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 62: 1345–1346. 2013. Votes: 2246: 12–0–2, 86% in favor (recommended); 2247: 10–2–2, 71% in favor (recommended). The generic name Todites Seward was published in 1901 for fertile fern foliage that is referable to the Osmundales. The genus is known from nearly all regions of the world, ranging in age from Late Permian to Jurassic. However, Todites is a nomenclatural synonym of Acrostichites Göpp. (1836), which was a small genus of three species, two of which were transferred to Sagenopteris C. Presl. The remaining species, A. williamsonis, the lectotype, was designated by Seward as the type of his new genus Todites. Doweld proposed to conserve Todites against Acrostichites, which is no longer in use. The committee is in agreement that Todites should be conserved over Acrostichites. Doweld also proposes to conserve Todites over the generic name Germaria C. Presl, which the proposal indicates is an older taxonomic synonym. There was some debate as to whether Germaria is so poorly documented that it represents a threat to Todites, but after

discussion a majority voted to include it in this conservation action as a rejected name. Germaria was treated in more detail in Prop. 2269, where Doweld proposed a lectotype for Germaria elymiformis Presl, the type of the generic name. After discussing the latter proposal the committee decided that it would be preferable to treat Germaria as a rejected name (see report for Prop. 2269 for further discussion). Doweld also proposes to conserve Pecopteris williamsonis Brongn., the type of name Todites, against P. curtata Phillips, P. recentior Phillips and P. hastata Phillips. Todites williamsonis is a well-known species name and consequently the committee supports conservation. Without conservation the epithet recentior must be used. The committee voted with a 86% majority to conserve Todites and with a 71% majority to conserve Pecopteris williamsonis. (2248)  Proposal to conserve the name Dadoxylon with a conserved type against Megadendron (fossil Gymnospermae: Cordaitopsida). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 62: 1347–1348. 2013. Votes: 0–14–0, 100% against (not recommended). The generic name Dadoxylon was published by Endlicher in 1847 for fossil wood mainly of Paleozoic age. The name is in widespread use for cordaitalean wood. The proposal indicates that Dadoxylon is illegitimate, being a later nomenclatural synonym of Pinites. However, this suggestion was recently refuted by Rössler & al. (Taxon 63: 177–184, 2014). In accepting the interpretation of Rössler & al. the committee does not see that action is needed with respect to Pinites. The proposal suggests that Dadoxylon needs to be conserved against Megadendron Rchb., but this too is seen as an error. The status of Dadoxylon versus its range of synonyms has been discussed many times in the literature and at conferences. In the case of Megadendron the committee accepts previous interpretations that have concluded Megadendron was not validly published by Reichenbach in 1836. Therefore conservation is not necessary. The committee voted unanimously to reject the proposal. As an aside, we note that if Megadendron Rchb. were to be accepted as validly published then Megadendron Miers (Lecythid­ aceae) becomes a later homonym. The committee accepts the conventional wisdom that Megadendron Rchb. is not validly published. If that is the case then conservation is not necessary. (2249–2250)  Proposals to conserve the names Taeniopteris with a conserved type and T. vittata with a conserved type (fossil Gymnospermae: Cycadeoideopsida). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 62: 1348–1349. 2013. Votes on both proposals: 0–14–0, 100% against (not recommended). The generic name Taeniopteris was published by Brongniart in 1828 and is widely used for fossil foliage of Mesozoic age. Taeniopteris is widespread and is widely used in geological and stratigraphical treatises. Taeniopteris is a nomenclaturally superfluous illegitimate name because Brongniart included the type of the generic name Marantoidea Jaeger, M. arenacea Jaeger (1827). The author proposes to conserve Taeniopteris with T. vittata as the conserved type. Doweld also indicates that T. vittata requires conservation with a conserved type. There is no disagreement about the importance of the generic name Taeniopteris. After some research we agree that conservation of the generic name is required due to the threat posed by Marantoidea. However, the committee does not agree with the solutions that the author has proposed. It seems that the author has overlooked at least two important papers that address this problem: Gomolitzky (in Taxon 36: 647–649. 1987) and Cleal & Rees (in Palaeontology 46:

Version of Record

383

Herendeen • Report of the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils

739–801 [pp. 762–764 for Taeniopteris]. 2003). Cleal & Rees proposed as lectotype for T. vittata Brongniart’s specimen from Stonesfield, not a specimen from Yorkshire, which would threaten the generic name Nilssoniopteris. This would be very disruptive. In researching the facts of this case we understand that epidermal characters are not known for the type of Marantoidea arenacea, contrary to the claim made by the author. After much discussion and research the committee voted unanimously to reject both proposals. A new proposal will be submitted that will present a solution that is not disruptive to established usage of these names. (2251)  Proposal to conserve Pitys, nom. cons., against Pinites (fossil Gymnospermae: Lyginopteridopsida). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 62: 1349–1350. 2013. Votes: 0–14–0, 100% against (not recommended). The generic name Pitys Witham is widely used for fossil wood referable to the Carboniferous age lyginopterid pteridosperms. The proposal suggests that Pitys is threatened by the name Pinites Lindl. & Hutton. However, the case presented by the author is contradicted by several sources, including Rössler & al. (in Taxon 63: 177–184. 2014), who conclude that Pinites eggensis is the type, and this does not threaten Pitys. We do not agree with Doweld’s assertions as to the earlier valid publication of the generic name Pitys. Not only is the “description” flawed in that it describes simply a preservational artefact, we also do not accept the suggestion that the species name was validly published there by reference to its figure (t. 2) in the preceding issue of the book. The committee concluded that the proposal is superfluous and voted unanimously to reject it. (2252)  Proposal to conserve the name Vojnovskyaceae against Dolerophyllaceae and Nephropsidaceae (fossil Gymnospermae: Vojnovskyales). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 62: 1350–1351. 2013. Votes: 13–1–0, 93% in favor (recommended). The family Vojnovskyaceae is an enigmatic group of fossil gymnosperms endemic to the Upper Paleozoic paleoflora of the Siberian Angarida paleocontinent. However, this family name is predated by two others, both of which are obscure and unknown: Nephropsidaceae and Dolerophyllaceae. The name Vojnovskyaceae is in relatively wide use therefore Doweld proposed to conserve it over the two unknown taxonomic synonyms Dolerophyllaceae and Nephropsidaceae. The committee agrees that this family name is in wide use, and this is likely to increase as more attention is paid to this paleoflora. There has been a question raised as to whether Nephropsidaceae is correctly interpreted as being a taxonomic synonym of Vojnovskyaceae but as best we can determine the proposal is correct in this assertion. The committee voted with a 93% majority to accept the proposal. (2253)  Proposal to conserve the name Crassinervia against Dolerophyllum (fossil Gymnospermae: Vojnovskyales). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 62: 1351–1353. 2013. Votes: 0–14–0, 100% against (not recommended). This proposal was judged to be excessively long with too much extraneous information. The basic details of the case are that the generic name Dolerophyllum was published by Saporta in 1878 for a Late Paleozoic age group of seed plants. Some authors have misapplied the name, but this is a taxonomic problem, not a nomenclatural error. In 1934 Neuburg published the generic name Crassinervia, which subsequently was determined to be a taxonomic synonym of Dolerophyllum. The name Crassinervia is in broad use in Russian literature. The proposal claims that the name Dolerophyllum has

384

TAXON 65 (2) • April 2016: 382–387

long been abandoned in favor of Crassinervia. While this may be accurate for the Russian literature, it is not correct for other parts of the world. Furthermore, the committee was not convinced that a taxonomic study has been done that explicitly states that these genera are taxonomic synonyms. Even if true, the committee is not favorably disposed to accept the case for conservation given that the name Dolerophyllum is in use. The committee voted unanimously to reject the proposal. (2254)  Proposal to conserve the name Spinosisporites against Spinosella (fossil plants). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 62: 1353– 1354. 2013. Votes: 13–0–1, 93% in favor (recommended). The generic name Spinosisporites was published by Luber in 1966 and is in widespread use in Late Paleozoic palynological literature. It is an important genus in regional biostratigraphy of Siberia and adjacent regions. However, Luber cited “1939. Spinosella Luber” in its protologue, and consequently Spinosisporites is a nomenclatural synonym of the previously validly published name Spinosella Luber. The name Spinosella has not been used in many years, whereas Spinosisporites is in wide use and includes at least 30 combinations. The proposal also mentions a case of possible parahomonymy between Spinosisporites and Spinoso-sporites Knox (typically spelled without the hyphen), but the author then notes that Spinoso-sporites is a nomenclaturally superfluous and illegitimate name. Thus this paragraph does not seem to be relevant to the problem being addressed. Nevertheless, I note that on other occasions with similar potential parahomonymy cases the committee has decided that the names are not confusable. The committee voted with a 93% majority to support the conservation proposal. (2265–2267)  Proposals to conserve the name Discoaster against Eu-discoaster, Helio-discoaster and Hemi-discoaster, and the names Heliodiscoaster and Hemidiscoaster with those spellings (fossil Prymnesiophyta (Algae) vel Haptomonada (Protista)). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 63: 195–197. 2014. Votes: 2265 (Discoaster): 13–1–0, 93% in favor (recommended); 2266 (Heliodiscoaster) and 2267 (Hemidiscoaster): 3–11–0, 65% against (not recommended). The generic name Discoaster was published by Tan in 1931. However, it is predated by three generic names, Eu-discoaster, Heliodiscoaster, and Hemi-discoaster, all also authored by Tan and often spelled in the dehyphenated form. Discoaster is an important extinct algal group of Cenozoic nannoliths with a cosmopolitan range from the Palaeocene to Pliocene. The numerous species (ca. 250 described binomials of which nearly 100 are in current use) are of great biostratigraphic value. The genus serves as a basis for a distinct family Discoasteraceae S.H. Tan and order Discoasterales Hay of fossil haptophyte algae. The nomenclatural history is complicated because the group was originally treated under the zoological Code as a group of protists. The committee is in agreement that the name Discoaster is important and merits conservation and voted with a 93% majority to accept Prop. 2265. The author also proposed conservation of the dehyphenated forms of the names Eu-discoaster, Helio-discoaster, and Hemidiscoaster. The committee has been presented with numerous cases of generic names originally spelled with a hyphen. The committee members prefer a more practical solution to these numerous orthography conservation proposals, which is to modify the Code to allow hyphens in generic names of fossil taxa to be removed as an orthographic error. The committee authored a proposal to amend the Code that would accomplish this: “(087–090) Proposal to treat the use of a

Version of Record

Herendeen • Report of the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils

TAXON 65 (2) • April 2016: 382–387

hyphen in the name of a fossil-genus as an orthographical error” (in Taxon 64: 863. 2015). Thus, the committee voted with a 65% majority to reject proposals 2266 and 2267. It may be worth noting that the minority of votes in favor of 2266 and 2267 were cast in support in the event that the proposal to modify the Code fails to pass. (2268) Proposal to conserve the name Aphlebia against Schizo­pteris (fossil Pteridophyta). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 63: 197–198. 2014. Votes: 0–14–0, 100% against (not recommended). The generic name Aphlebia C. Presl was published in 1838 for Paleozoic age fossil fern leaf fragments of a distinctive morphology (the structures grew near the base of primary pinnae and are termed aphlebia). They are now known to be associated with a number of different Paleozoic fern foliage genera. The proposal indicates that the genus Schizopteris, which was published by Brongniart in 1828, was placed in synonymy under Aphlebia by Kidston in 1922 and Jongmans in 1957. However, the case is not as straightforward as presented in the proposal. It is not correct that Schizopteris is no longer in use. Also there is a question as to whether Schizopteris and Aphlebia are taxonomic synonyms. In the view of the committee a proper taxonomic study is needed before any conservation decision is made. Aphlebia is a name that is hardly used today except in an informal sense given that it is used to describe a particular leaf morphology. In the view of the committee there would be no significant disruption to taxonomy if the name Aphlebia were to be replaced by Schizopteris. The committee voted unanimously to reject the proposal. (2269)  Proposal to conserve the name Sphenopteris princeps (Todites princeps) against Alethopteris imbricata, Pecopteris athyroides, and Germaria elymiformis (fossil Pteridophyta, Osmundopsida). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 63: 198–199. 2014. Votes: 0–14–0, 100% against (not recommended). This proposal, which was greatly complicated by the presence of too much extraneous detail, seeks conservation for a single species name. The essential facts are the following: Sphenopteris princeps C. Presl (1838), which is proposed for conservation, is the basionym for Todites princeps (C. Presl) Gothan, a name that is in current use. The names Pecopteris athyroides Brongn. (1836), Alethopteris imbricata Sternb. (1836), and Germaria elymiformis C. Presl (1838), all predate S. princeps. There are differing opinions as to whether S. princeps is a nomenclatural or taxonomic synonym of A. imbricata. The proposal claims there is no evidence that the type of A. imbricata and either of Presl’s names are the same, and furthermore A. imbricata was not included in the synonymy of either of Presl’s new species names. The proposal indicates that Göppert in 1841 and Schenk in 1867 both treated A. imbricata and S. princeps as synonyms and incorrectly used the name S. princeps (note that we do not find mention of A. imbricata in Göppert 1841). The proposal indicates that Harris in 1961 treated P. athyroides as a taxonomic synonym of S. princeps. There is no question about the fact that P. athyroides predates these names and has priority when these taxa are united. The author proposes conservation of S. princeps to preserve usage of the name Todites princeps. The committee was not persuaded that substantial disruption would ensue if conservation was not approved. Furthermore, the committee does not see the case involving Pecopteris athyroides as settled. Doweld states that Harris confirmed the synonymy, but we are not certain how thoroughly this was investigated by Harris, nor whether any subsequent taxonomic study has been done. While Harris states that “There is little doubt” he had not examined the type of the Brongniart species name, and judging from the illustration it does not

look much like S. (Todites) princeps. Doweld indicates that Brongniart’s specimen is Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. Paris, No. MHNH.F.847, and in the proposal he lectotypifies the name based on this specimen. However, we question this because Brongniart mentioned Saltwick near Whitby as the locality whereas the specimen that Doweld cites is from Scarborough (ca. 30 km distant). These problems need to be resolved with a proper taxonomic study before any conservation action is taken. As to Alethopteris imbricata vs. Sphenopteris princeps, despite statements in the proposal, the committee was not convinced that all the facts are clearly and correctly set out. It is a bit disconcerting that the author has proposed a neotype for Alethopteris imbricata in this proposal. Doweld neotypified Alethopteris imbricata with the same specimen that serves as type for Sphenopteris princeps, based on the justification that the two species have been considered to be taxonomic synonyms since the 19th century. Finally, as to Germaria elymiformis Presl, Doweld proposed a lectotype for this name as well, a specimen he characterized as an “imperfectly preserved rhizomatous stem fragment”. Other workers have noted that only one specimen remains for this taxon and that it is too poorly preserved to serve as a type for a generic name. Thus the committee is of the opinion that the names Germaria and Germaria elymiformis should be proposed for rejection under Art. 56. Certainly as a taxon based on a fossil stem it does not threaten a species named for fertile fern foliage. Note that Germaria is included in Prop. 2246. Given these questions the committee voted unanimously to reject the proposal. (2270)  Proposal to conserve the name Cordaicladus against Palaeopteris (fossil Gymnospermae, Cordaitopsida). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 63: 199–200. 2014. Votes: 0–14–0, 100% against (not recommended). The generic name Cordaicladus was published by Grand’Eury in 1877 for compression fossils of cordaitalean stems. This name is in current use, although it does not seem to be often used. However, the name is predated by Palaeopteris Geinitz, which was published in 1855. The proposal indicates that Palaeopteris was soon abandoned. The proposal also states that Gothan subsumed Palaeopteris Geinitz into the synonymy of Cordaicladus in 1923, but we do not find such a definitive statement. Nevertheless, Palaeopteris has not been used in many years. The proposal also mentions the name Cladiscus Grand’Eury, which is an Illegitimate name because it was inappropriately proposed to replace the validly published name Palaeopteris Geinitz. Doweld’s proposal notes discrepancies in the 1877 monograph of Grand’Eury where the names Cordaicladus and Cladiscus are used inconsistently. In the committee’s view Cordaicladus is an obscure name only occasionally appearing in the literature, mostly just as Cordaicladus sp. On this basis alone we are not convinced that conservation is justified. There will be no significant disruption to taxonomic nomenclature if it is necessary for authors to use the name Palaeopteris Geinitz. A proper taxonomic study of these taxa could be valuable, especially since it seems that nobody has reinvestigated Geinitz’s original material. The committee voted unanimously to reject the proposal. (2271)  Proposal to conserve the name Aphanozonatisporites against Chroococcites, Dictyophis, Rhizostaemis and Triletes (fossil plants). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 63: 200–202. 2014. Votes: 0–14–0, 100% against (not recommended). This long, complicated proposal dealing with complex problems in palynological nomenclature contains a number of problems that cumulatively leave us wary of accepting the proposal as written.

Version of Record

385

Herendeen • Report of the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils

The generic name Triletes Reinsch was published in 1881 for fossil spores with a trilete scar. The same publication also established the generic name Chroococcites Reinsch, which Doweld regards as being a taxonomic synonym of Triletes. Additional generic names were also published by Reinsch in 1884, two of which Doweld regards as taxonomic synonyms of Triletes. Numerous combinations in Triletes were subsequently published. Additional generic names were published in attempts to reclassify Triletes into natural entities, of which the proposal lists the following as taxonomic synonyms of Triletes: Megaapiculati Istchenko & Semenova (1960), Megalaevigati Istchenko & Semenova (1960), and Aphanozonatisporites Oshurkova (1964). The proposal states that with the new taxonomy Triletes was no longer used for “serious” taxonomic work. This is not correct; Triletes is still used in palynological literature. The author is correct that some of the other generic names listed in the proposal are no longer in use. Doweld notes that a possible alternate approach would be to propose to reject these names as nomina utique rejicienda under Art. 56, but including Triletes in such a proposal would be an error. It is correct that Aphanozonatisporites (misspelled as Aphanozonatosporites in several places in the proposal) is in current use, but so too is Triletes. The proposal erroneously states that Laevigati-sporites Ibrahim (1933), the earliest available generic name that could be used for the core group of species of Triletes, is an illegitimate junior homonym of Laevigati-sporites Potonié & Gelletich (1933) but this is not correct. Those authors published the name Laevigata-sporites. The committee agrees that there is much work to be done in sorting out palynological nomenclature, but we conclude this proposal is premature. Additional taxonomic and nomenclatural work is needed to develop a comprehensive solution to the multiple problems uncovered. The committee voted unanimously against the proposal. (2272)  Proposal to conserve the name Polypodiisporites with that spelling against Polypodii-sporonites (fossil plants). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 63: 202–203. 2014. Votes: 13–1–0, 93% in favor (recommended). The generic name Polypodii-sporites R. Potonié (usually spelled without the hyphen) was published in 1933 as a substitute name for Polypodii-sporonites R. Potonié, published in 1931. Potonié published the new name because he changed his system of naming fossil spores and pollen. Although the name Polypodiisporites was nomenclaturally superfluous when published, this illegitimate name was taken up by palynologists and has been used for numerous species of fossil spores. The committee agrees with the author that the name Polypodiisporites (spelled without the hyphen) merits conservation. The proposal does not mention an apparent later homonym, Polypodiisporites A.F. Chlonova (in Trudy Inst. Geol. Geofiz. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Sibirsk. Otd. 7[a]: 42. 1961). The committee voted with a 93% majority in support of the proposal. (2285–2286) Proposals to conserve the names Umbellina against Umbella and Umbellinaceae against Umbellaceae (fossil Charophyta). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 63: 441–442. 2014. Votes for both proposals: 14–0–0, 100% in favor (recommended). The generic name Umbellina A.R. Loebl. & Tappan, published in 1961 as a replacement name for Umbella Maslov (1956), is a later homonym of Umbella d’Orb. (1841) in zoological nomenclature. These fossils were originally thought to be the remains of fossil foraminifera and thus were named in accordance with the zoological Code. The fossils were subsequently interpreted to represent gyrogonites of charophyte algae. Under the ICN the name Umbella is not an illegitimate

386

TAXON 65 (2) • April 2016: 382–387

later homonym, but Umbellina is regarded as an illegitimate superfluous name. The name Umbellina is in widespread use in botanical taxonomy, as is the family name Umbellinaceae. The committee voted unanimously in support of both proposals. (2287)  Proposal to conserve the name Asterocalamites against Archaeocalamites and Stigmatocanna (fossil Equisetophyta: Asterocalamitopsida). Proposed by A. Doweld in Taxon 63: 442–444. 2014. Votes: 1–13–0, 93% against (not recommended). The generic name Asterocalamites (Schimp.) Zeiller was published in 1879. Its basionym, Calamites subg. Asterocalamites, was established as a monotypic subgenus based on Calamites radiatus Brongn. The proposal indicates that at the same time Zeiller also established the taxonomic synonymy of Calamites scrobiculatus Schloth. (1820) with Calamites radiatus Brongn. (1828), and provided a new name for this one species, Asterocalamites scrobiculatus (Schloth.) Zeiller. The proposal also indicates that Zeiller included the previously validly published generic name, Archaeocalamites Stur (1875) in the protologue of Asterocalamites. Both generic names Asterocalamites and Archaeocalamites are in current use for the same taxon, with perhaps Archaeocalamites being more frequently used today. Given this the committee would prefer to let the rules of nomenclature and principle of priority stand and therefore give preference to the name Archaeocalamites. However, the proposal indicates there is a third generic name involved: Stigmatocanna Göpp., published in 1852 with one species, S. volkmanniana Göpp., based on fragmentarily preserved material. The species was later synonymized with Calamites radiatus Brongn. Evidently the name Stigmatocanna has not been used since the 19th century. If the statements in the proposal are correct then this name may need to be dealt with, but we are not aware of any taxonomic study that confirms the conclusion that Stigmatocanna volkmanniana and Calamites radiatus are taxonomic synonyms. In fact it has been suggested to us that Stigmatocanna volkmanniana may represent a distinct genus. Clearly more study is needed. Given these uncertainties the committee voted with a 93% majority to reject the proposal as being premature. (2301)  Proposal to conserve the name Frenelopsis against Aularthrophyton (fossil Gymnospermae: Coniferales). Proposed by Bernard Gomez & al. in Taxon 63: 691–692. 2014. Votes: 14–0–0, 100% in favor (recommended). The generic name Frenelopsis Schenk was published in 1869 and has become a widely used name for an extinct group of Cretaceous age conifer foliage. All Frenelopsis species are restricted to the Cretaceous period, ranging from the Hauterivian to the Maastrichtian. However, the name is predated by Aularthrophyton A. Massal., which was published in 1856 and is not in current use. The proposal provides a clear explanation of the taxonomic and nomenclatural circumstances surrounding these names. The authors conducted a careful study that verified Aularthrophyton and Frenelopsis are taxonomically synonymous. The committee agreed that the name Frenelopsis is important and merits conservation and therefore voted unanimously in support of the proposal. (2322)  Proposal to conserve the name Viburnum betulifolium Batalin (Caprifoliaceae / Adoxaceae) against V. betulifolium Ward (fossil Caprifoliaceae / Adoxaceae). Proposed by I. Turner in Taxon 63: 1133–1133. 2014. Votes: 14–0–0, 100% in favor (recommended). The name Viburnum betulifolium Batalin was published in 1984 for a species native to China. The proposal indicates that this species

Version of Record

Herendeen • Report of the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils

TAXON 65 (2) • April 2016: 382–387

is well known and the name is widely used in ornamental horticulture, being mostly grown for the autumn and winter interest of its bright red fruits. However, the same name was used earlier by Ward in 1887 for a fossil-species from the Tertiary of Montana, U.S.A. Ward’s name was subsequently reduced to a synonym of Viburnum antiquum (Newb.) Hollick by Brown in 1962 and apparently has not been used since. The committee therefore agrees with the author that rejection of Ward’s name will not disrupt paleobotanical nomenclature. The committee voted unanimously in support of the proposal. (2339)  Proposal to conserve the name Ulmus laciniata Mayr ex Schwapp. (Ulmaceae) against Ulmus laciniata Göpp. (fossil Ulm­ aceae). Proposed by I. Turner in Taxon 63: 1382–1383. 2014. Votes: 14–0–0, 100% in favor (recommended). The name Ulmus laciniata Mayr ex Schwapp., published in 1895, is in widespread use for a species of elm from the far east of Asia that is often referred to as the Manchurian elm. The name Ulmus laciniata Göpp. was previously published in 1855 for a fossil elm from the Tertiary of Silesia. Ulmus laciniata Göpp. has not been widely used. The proposal indicates that in 1980 Zastawniak suggested that the fossil species might be better placed in Sorbus but in 1982 Iljinskaja maintained the species in her treatment of Ulmaceae for the fossil flora of the Soviet Union. More recently, in 2010 Walther & Eichler

cited U. laciniata as a synonym of U. carpinoides Göpp. While there is no consensus on the merits of recognizing U. laciniata Göpp. as a distinct species of Ulmus, it is clear that the name Ulmus laciniata Mayr ex Schwapp. is widely used. Rejection of the name U. laciniata Göpp. should not cause significant disruption to paleobotanical nomenclature. Therefore the committee voted unanimously to support the proposal. Request for a binding decision on whether names are sufficiently alike to be confused

Confusability of Sycidium and Sykidion. Vote: 0–14–0, 100% against (recommended not to treat as homonyms). The Committee on Fossils was asked by the General Committee to discuss the question of whether the names Sycidium Sandberger (fossil Characeae) and Sykidion E.P. Wright (extant green algae) are similar enough to be considered confusable as near homonyms. We were also asked to discuss whether the family names derived from these two genus names would be likely to be confused. After discussion this committee voted with a 100% majority in deciding that the names Sycidium and Sykidion are not confusable. This includes consideration of potential confusion of the family names Sycidiaceae Peck (order Sycidiales Maedler) and Sykidiaceae (order Sykidiales).

Version of Record

387

Suggest Documents