fossil plant nomenclatural problem

[Una Smith]

John McNeill wrote:

>I cannot see how the use of _Eucalyptus haeringiana_ for "species 2" can
>be other than a tentative identification by Lesquereux ...

I think Lesquereux did intend to make a tentative identification.  But
all of the several authors since 1873 who have cited "species 2" treated
it as distinct from Ettingshausen's species (species 1).  This is the
source of my confusion.  Do I have to do anything about these citations?
If Lesquereux's "species 2" were just a misidentification, or a homonym,
why did these earlier authors ignore it?  They were taxonomists, so I
have been working under the assumpution that they had some good reason
that I haven't found or figured out for myself.


>Sorry not to quote the specific Articles from the ICBN, but I do not have
>my copy handy -- but anyway it is on the Web. ...

The URL is http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/.


>By the way, the thought of confusing a (living) _Eriocaulon_ and a
>_Eucalyptus_ is mind-boggling -- fortunately I do not work on fossil
>fragments!

It's even worse than mind-boggling.  Palaeoaster, described as "leaves"
OR parts of a "capsule" (Knowlton's quotes), is a capsular fruit of the
lower eudicot variety, not a leaf.  The fruit dehisces (splits open) into
multiple valves (segments), which Lesquereux misinterpreted as leaves.
Apparently, Lesquereux believed that all species were created by God, but
that some species had been lost on some continents.  Consequently, he
tended to shoe-horn every fossil he described into an existing (usually
living) genus, if not species.  And he described hundreds of fossils.


        Una Smith               Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
                                Yale University
        una.smith at yale.edu      New Haven, CT  06520-8106