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

[Tony Rees]

Thanks Paul... on that basis I will proceed with entering Wachtler's names
into my system as "accepted" at this time (infers "validly published" in
botany), until/unless they are either stated to be not validly published,
or are synonymized, in later treatments.

Reading a little further, I am now inclined to list them as unallocated
pteridosperms: as per S.V. Naugolnykh, 2013, "New male reproductive organs
of gymnosperms Permotheca colovratica sp. nov. from the Lower Permian of
the Ural Mountains", Paleontological Journal, 2013, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.
114–126 (available via researchgate), from the same locality and material;
Permotheca colovratica and several others (but not the type species) is
listed in Peltaspermales (Pterospermopsida) by J. Zhang et al., 2021, "The
Eco-Plant model and its implication on Mesozoic dispersed sporomorphs for
Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, and Gymnosperms", Review of Palaeobotany and
Palynology. 293: 104503., doi: 10.1016/j.revpalbo.2021.104503

Despite being claimed as an early angiosperm by Wachtler (p. 26), P.
colovratica  has bisaccate in-situ pollen of the Falcisporites type (also
some Alisporites) which is clearly gymnospermous; Alisporites is
"considered to be characteristic of peltasperms in the broad sense (sensu
Meyen, 1987) and mostly Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic conifers of the
families Ullmanniaceae, Voltziaceae, and Podocarpaceae (Balme, 1995)"
according to  Naugolnykh, p. 122. Naugolnykh also notes that "Pollen
extracted from the sporangium of Permotheca colovratica sp. nov. is similar
to disperse pollen grains (Pl. 2, figs. 2–4) abundant in the Permian
deposits of the ForeUrals" -  in other words the stratigraphic distribution
of the (apparently gymnosperm) "flowers" matches the stratigraphic
distribution of the (gymnosperm) pollen grains with which they are
associated (which Wachtler does not consider), not anything angiospermous
(which latter might corroborate Wachtler's assignment/s, if found).

Regards - Tony

Naugolnykh's paper is well worth a look for an alternative view regarding
the classification of these Early Permian, flower-like structures.

Regards - 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%7C895e7d0acca2468180d208da47f39f52%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637901408921119462%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SHXsOY1VK%2FRWVS%2B2AOoiktioo%2F0HIaG7vtWSZc5U690%3D&reserved=0


On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 02:45, Paul van Rijckevorsel via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> Yes, it seems likely that these names will squeeze by
> from a nomenclatural viewpoint. Although a diagnosis
> like "It has a compound of stamina with several
> filaments and anthers grouped into a flower-structure"
> by itself will be inadequate.
>
> In general, for nomenclature the exact taxonomic
> position hypothesized by the author is of no importance.
> If the conditions for valid publication are met, then it
> does not matter if later it turns out that the author got
> the taxonomy wrong, and that it concerns, say, animals
> instead of plants. The name itself will stand, even if it
> becomes clear that it does not stand for anything.
>
> Paul
>