[Taxacom] Picobiliphyta?

[James L. Reveal]

Tom:

And on the specific case of "Polypodiophyta instead of Pteridophyta" allow 
me to remind you that Pteridophyta Schimp. in Schenk, Handb. Palaeont., 
Palaeophyt.: 1. 1879, based on Pteris L. is an older name than 
Polypodiophyta Cronquist, Takht. & Zimmerm., Taxon 15: 133. Apr 1966, based 
on Polypodium L.

Of course, priority is not operative at suprafamilial ranks and one can use 
either of the above. What should be avoided is a name like Filicophyta which 
was based on a generic name, Filix Adans. (1763), that is now both rejected 
and a later homonym (non Seguier, 1754).

While a name like picobiliphyta or picobiliphytes (albeit more correct 
picobiliophyta and picobiliophytes) makes a nice common name, the name of 
the new family must be derived from the generic name, and thus it would make 
sense that any suprafamilial name be similarly established. As I understand 
the situation, the algal has not been validly published and thus any thought 
of a scientific name is premature as no doubt the discoverers of this 
interesting taxon will give careful thought to properly establishing a 
meaningful scientific name. Only then can additional names at higher ranks 
be validly published as required.

Jim Reveal


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Kinman" <kinman at hotmail.com>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Picobiliphyta?


> Thomas Lammers wrote:
>    I will say that my consistency hobgoblin would be happier if names of
> *all* ranks were based on a generic name: Magnoliophyta instead of
> Anthophyta, Polypodiophyta instead of Pteridophyta, etc.  But that's just
> me.
> ***********************************
> Tom,
>     I agree with you on Magnoliophyta (as well as Pinophyta and 
> Bryophyta).
>  However, I (and perhaps a majority of others) prefer Pteridophyta.  You
> could always use Pteridiophyta (which actually is based on a genus,
> Pteridium) as some people already do.  I might even switch to 
> Pteridiophyta
> myself (seems like a good compromise to me).  :-)
>
>     But my particular hobgoblin at the present is Picobiliphyta, and I 
> just
> hope that they don't use anything like that when they formally name the
> genus and family.  Would be nice to nip this problem in the bud while we
> still have the chance.
>   ----Cheers,
>          Ken Kinman
> P.S.  Typifying *all* higher category names would never be popular in
> zoology, for either vertebrates (Reptilia, Aves, Mammalia, Primates,
> Rodentia, Chiroptera, etc.) or invertebrates (Mollusca, Gastropoda,
> Arthropoda, Insecta, Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Trilobita, etc.).
> Starobogatov actually tried to typify suprafamilial animal taxa, but it 
> just
> hasn't caught on at all.  Which is fine with me, because it would be just
> too destabilizing and confusing.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.10/624 - Release Date: 1/12/2007
>
>