Taxacom: "Early Permian" angiosperms... real or not real taxa/names?

[Tony Rees]

Dear Taxacomers,

As some of you will be aware, with IRMNG (the Interim Register of Marine
and Nonmarine Genera) I attempt to compile a synoptic list of published
genus names, arranged in a "management classification" (an attempt at
synthesis of what seems to be current practise in the literature), for all
life i.e. animals, plants and more (including the most obscure
microfossils, viruses and prokaryotes).

Currently I am attempting to back fill some gaps in recently published
fossil plant names and came across this work and some of its associated
publications: "The Evolution of the First Flowers Early Permian
Angiosperms" by Michael Wachtler, apparently more or less self published by
the Dolomythos Museum, Italy, see
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FWachtler-Michael%2Fpublication%2F341323347_The_Evolution_of_the_First_Flowers_-_Early_Permian_Angiosperms%2Flinks%2F5ebac7e392851c11a8620fbc%2FThe-Evolution-of-the-First-Flowers-Early-Permian-Angiosperms.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cc9826f0a4e24486d0ac508da44d3bd0a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637897973602019656%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zX09PZl181Zxg1YXJPNyzyjJw9%2FkJ8VdAte4A8E%2B%2Be0%3D&reserved=0
, in which he establishes a number of new genera and species for what he
insists are new Permian angiosperm flowers, a contention carried through to
a number of other, similar works.

Since otherwise, the earliest accepted angiosperm fossils do not appear
until the Cretaceous (refer e.g. Herendeen et al. 2017,
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fnplants201715&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cc9826f0a4e24486d0ac508da44d3bd0a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637897973602019656%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=81k0QfuEpPzdQZ4p6aE3%2B%2FNYOdbC6hBsh8D3GeL2Tj4%3D&reserved=0), one is forced to the
conclusion that either Wachtler's fossils are not angiosperms, or not
Permian, or perhaps not either, although they do look like flowers from his
pictures. Perhaps the dating is wrong - I am no specialist in such matters;
but in any case there is at least a 150 million year difference between the
start of the Permian and the start of the Cretaceous periods (with all of
the Triassic and Jurassic between), so something is badly amiss...

Nevertheless, I am wondering whether Wachtler's published names should
stand, from a nomenclatural point of view, irrespective of the
"challenging" ages ascribed to them, or whether they do not merit inclusion
in my system on the basis of possibly invalid publication (which does not
seem to be the case) or other considerations. I note of interest, that
Wachtler's publications do seem to be cited by no-one but himself, which
does raise a bit of a red flag...

Your opinions welcome!

Thanks in advance - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cc9826f0a4e24486d0ac508da44d3bd0a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637897973602019656%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dpDp0LvsiHWBBbgWUq4K0wKAQAI%2FmyL0elrRuoE07Xk%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cc9826f0a4e24486d0ac508da44d3bd0a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637897973602019656%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WHQoBokCW%2BBRT%2Bck4ANa2BtOR5b%2FtjEazdqbzxqVkAg%3D&reserved=0