Taxacom: Seeking advice RE higher taxon names to use for 2 groups of fossil plants

Wed May 4 01:37:12 CDT 2022

Dear all,

Well, I have to come down one way or the other regarding the 2 issues I set
out in the original post.

1: Regarding (e.g.) order Cycadeoidales Berry, 1916 vs. order
Bennettitales, since Cycadeoidea is a genus name in current use and also
now a nom. cons., while Bennettites has been consigned to synonymy since
1917, it does seem that the use of names based on Cycadeoidea are probably
preferable, so I will go that way (in fact stay that way, since I went down
that route a couple of years back in my data system, however needed some
confidence that this was a good choice.

2: Regarding (e.g.) order Langiophytales Doweld vs. order Horneophytales,
the situation is less clear cut. Doweld, 2001 (Prosyllabus Tracheophytorum:
Tentamen Systematis Plantarum) established the new names Phylum
Langiophytophyta, Classis Langiophytopsida, Ordo Langiophytales and Fam.
Langiophytaceae, while noting that older names existed for the same
concepts at these ranks (except phylum), notably class Horneophytidae
Němejc, 1963 / Horneophytopsida S. V. Meyen, 1978, order Horneophytales
Novák, 1961 and family Horneophytaceae Darrah, 1960 ...  [other sources
give Němejc 1960, or Kenrick & Crane, 1997 as authorship for this family].

Doweld's names have been picked up as names of choice in 3 significant
other compendia notably Tropicos (2022 version), "A Classification of the
Bryobiotina" Edited by John C. Brinda and John J. Atwood, Draft version, 28
Apr 2022 (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bryonames.org%2Fnomenclator&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2Bj%2FnGLEP992z2enpX8jys97Rvx%2B69PtjMalM2vACmoI%3D&reserved=0), as well as Novikoff, A. &
Barabasz-Krasny, B. (2015) System of Embryophytes. In: Novikoff, A. &
Barabasz-Krasny, B. Modern Plant Systematics. Liga-Pres, Lviv, Ukraine, pp.
23–63. However, in Google Scholar there are currently zero hits
for Langiophytophyta / -opsida / -ales / -aceae (actually there is 1 for
Langiophytophyta, for a paper of mine, in which I stated that I had chosen
not to use it...), whereas there are "some" for Horneophyta
(9), Horneophytopsida (51), Horneophytales (4) and Horneophytaceae (8).

In my last iterations of my data compendium (I am preparing the next one
now, hence the context for this message) I used Horneophytopsida (etc.)
since they appeared to me to be the earliest published names, however I am
at least partly swayed by the choice of Tropicos, https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bryonames.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wKJgseoXDjnXxGmLd0Jv27cw%2FGlghPXniPisLjaRoGU%3D&reserved=0, and
Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny to follow A.B. Doweld's naming system...

Any further advice out there in the land of plant taxonomy before I make a
"2022 edition" call on this one?

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%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AyltQlfya64xjlFPV84Dg1azcpi9I2eucSByUbffKDc%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1DAsl2FZ3sTZKBc1WRWcetF2Bb%2BXdKAKg7uA1yWncTY%3D&reserved=0

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 18:37, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Paul for that clarification.
>
> Tony
>
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022, 6:12 pm dipteryx--- via Taxacom, <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> As I said, the conservation proposal went through. This
>> includes ratification by the 2017, Shenzhen Congress
>> (which is pretty quick, just over a year since publication
>> of the proposal). The only document that has any content
>> that is potentially of interest is the report by the Committee
>> for Fossils (this is often the case, it is fairly rare that there
>> is useful content available at one of the next two steps in the
>> process), which is why I linked to it.
>>
>> BTW, it is not so that names depend on the final ratification
>> for them to become usable. There are Rec. 14A, 34A, and
>> 56A to give guidance in the interim. And since that same
>> 2017, Shenzhen Congress it is no longer the Congress that
>> that has the primary power of decision, but rather the
>> General Committee.
>>
>> Another question is if Rec. 16A is all that useful in offering
>> guidance. It can be taken to mean that it is important to
>> establish priority at each and every rank. I imagine it would
>> be more popular to be consistent across ranks, more or less
>> regardless of priority. But again, a recommendation is just that:
>> it does not mean that the world at large needs to follow it.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> > Op 24-04-2022 22:21 schreef Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >
>> > Sorry, a sentence in the above message was incomplete:
>> >
>> > "* 11.10. The principle of priority does not apply above the rank of
>> family, however for order, class, or division"
>> > append: " 16A.1. In choosing among typified names for a taxon above the
>> rank of family, authors should generally follow the principle of priority."
>> >
>> > Regards - Tony
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 05:35, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com mailto:
>> tonyrees49 at gmail.com > wrote:
>> >
>> > > OK, let me try to explore further my own questions...
>> > >
>> > > Let us deal first with names at the rank of family.
>> > >
>> > > From the relevant nomenclatural Code i.e. ICNafp, 2018:
>> > >
>> > > * 11.1. Each family or lower-ranked taxon with a particular
>> circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name. Special
>> exceptions are made for nine families and one subfamily for which
>> alternative names are permitted (see Art. 18.5 and 19.8). The use of
>> separate names is allowed for fossil-taxa that represent different parts,
>> life-history stages, or preservational states of what may have been a
>> single organismal taxon or even a single individual (Art 1.2).
>> > >
>> > > * 11.3. For any taxon from family to genus, inclusive, the correct
>> name is the earliest legitimate one with the same rank, except in cases of
>> limitation of priority by conservation or protection (see Art. 14 and F.2)
>> or where Art. 11.7, 11.8, 19.4, 56, 57, F.3, or F.7 apply.
>> > >
>> > > * 18.1 Note 2. The name of a family may be formed from any validly
>> published name of an included genus, even one that is unavailable for use,
>> although the provisions of Art. 18.3 apply if the generic name is
>> illegitimate.
>> > >
>> > > * 18.3. A name of a family formed from an illegitimate generic name
>> is illegitimate unless and until it or the generic name from which it is
>> formed is conserved or protected.
>> > >
>> > > From the above, it is clear that in the cases
>> Cycadeoideaceae/Bennettitaceae (based on Cycadeoidea/Bennetites) and
>> Horneophytaceae/Langiophytaceae (based on Horneophyton/Langiophyton):
>> > >
>> > > 1: only one name can be correct in each case [at least, at a
>> particular point in time], where the intended taxonomic concept is the same.
>> > >
>> > > 2: per Art. 11.3, the principle of priority applies to names at
>> family rank (other aspects being satisfied) so it seems to me that
>> Cycadeoideaceae Buckland ex Fitton (Geol. Sketch Hastings: 77. 26 Jan 1833
>> (‘Cycadeoideae’)) (per Doweld) would normally have priority over
>> Bennettitaceae Lignier (in Nature 50: 595. 1894 (‘Bennettiteae’) (again per
>> Doweld), however this may be affected by the illegitimacy of the type genus
>> name i.e. Cycadeoidea Buckland, 1828 (not validly published), later
>> Cycadeoidea W. Buckland ex Lindley et W. Hutton, nom. cons. prop.
>> (currently a superfluous replacement name for Mantellia, nom. rej. prop.).
>> Would I be correct in thinking that, until Doweld's 2016 proposal to
>> conserve Cycadeoidea is ratified, Bennettitaceae is still technically
>> correct but would then be replaced by Cycadeoideaceae?
>> > >
>> > > 3, again per Art. 11.3, Horneophytaceae (possibly from Němejc, 1960,
>> reference not seen) should have priority over Langiophytaceae Doweld, 2001,
>> (in Prosyllab. Tracheophyt.: I), however I am more in the dark about this
>> one, and note that Doweld is generally very knowledgeable in these matters!
>> So I would appreciate any further information on this.
>> > >
>> > > 4. Once the family names are settled, I am presuming that it is
>> preferable that the higher taxon ranks follow from these, provided that
>> they are not descriptive names, noting however:
>> > >
>> > > * 10.10. The principle of typification does not apply to names of
>> taxa above the rank of family, except for names that are automatically
>> typified by being formed from generic names (see Art. 16.1(a)), the type of
>> which is the same as that of the generic name.
>> > >
>> > > * 11.10. The principle of priority does not apply above the rank of
>> family, however for order, class, or division
>> > >
>> > > So I _think_ that higher taxon names formed from a genus or family
>> would be "automatically typified", giving e.g.
>> Cycadeoideaceae/Cycadeoideales/Cycadeoideopsida, such also that
>> Cycadeoideaceae/Bennettitales (per Taylor) would be incorrect??
>> > >
>> > > I note that in the Horneophyta/Langiophytophyta case, both Tropicos
>> and the Bryophyte Nomenclator currently use:
>> > > ----------------
>> > > division:Langiophytophyta Doweld, 2001
>> > > class:Langiophytopsida Doweld, 2001
>> > > order:Langiophytales Doweld, 2001
>> > > family:Langiophytaceae Doweld, 2001
>> > > ----------------
>> > > not Horneophyta, etc., so I am wondering what would be the reason for
>> this?
>> > >
>> > > Further input appreciated,
>> > >
>> > > Regards - Tony
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 at 17:14, dipteryx--- via Taxacom <
>> taxacom at lists.ku.edu mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The conservation proposal went through:
>> > > >
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2Fepdf%2F10.12705%2F661.17&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jtiXjiM137yTL26xHuPrFAG46NfJY0kc5Io3iXyD0Xw%3D&reserved=0
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2Fepdf%2F10.12705%2F661.17&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jtiXjiM137yTL26xHuPrFAG46NfJY0kc5Io3iXyD0Xw%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >
>> > > > Paul
>> > > >
>> > > > > Op 24-04-2022 07:41 schreef Tony Rees via Taxacom <
>> taxacom at lists.ku.edu mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu >:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Dear Taxacomers,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I am seeking advice as to the best choice of higher taxon names
>> for a
>> > > > > couple of groups of fossil plants. These are:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1: Order Cycadeoidales Berry, 1916 vs. order Bennettitales
>> Bessey, 1910
>> > > > > by extension: class Cycadeoideopsida Scott, 1923 vs. class
>> Bennettitopsida
>> > > > > Engler 1892
>> > > > > phylum Cycadeoideophyta T.N. Taylor, 1981 vs. phylum
>> Bennettitophyta
>> > > > > Kravtsov & Poljarnaja 1995
>> > > > > family Cycadeoideaceae Buckland ex Fitton, 1833 vs.
>> Bennettitaceae Lignier,
>> > > > > 1894
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Included families:  Cycadeoideaceae R. Br. ex G.R. Wieland (≡
>> > > > > Bennettitaceae Lignier), Sturianthaceae Doweld (syn.
>> Sturiellaceae
>> > > > > Němejc), Westersheimiaceae Němejc, Williamsoniaceae (Carruthers)
>> Nathorst,
>> > > > > Williamsoniellaceae Nakai
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The type family Cycadeoideaceae/Bennettitaceae includes the type
>> genus
>> > > > > Cycadeoidea W. Buckland ex Lindley et W. Hutton but no current
>> genus
>> > > > > Bennettites (although there is a Bennetticarpus Harris and a
>> Bennettistemon
>> > > > > Harris); Zijlstra et al. (2014) state that "Bennettites
>> Carruthers 1870 is
>> > > > > the most important synonym of Cycadeoidea Buckland ex Lindl. et
>> Hutton
>> > > > > 1832. Soon after Seward's conclusion (Seward, 1917, p. 367–386)
>> that these
>> > > > > genera are inseparable, the use of Bennettites stopped".
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Doweld, 2016a states that the type generic name, Cycadeoidea
>> Buckland, 1828
>> > > > > was not validly published, but the genus Mantellia Brongniart,
>> 1828 was
>> > > > > validly published for the same taxon later the same year.
>> Subsequently,
>> > > > > Cycadeoidea was validly published by Lindley & Hutton, 1832 but
>> this name
>> > > > > then becomes a superfluus replacement name for Mantellia; Doweld
>> states
>> > > > > that Cycadeoidea Buckland ex Lindl. & Hutton was to be the
>> subject of a
>> > > > > nom. cons. proposal, published as Doweld, 2016b.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Bennettitales (in particular) has always been a popular choice of
>> name for
>> > > > > this group, but would Cycadeoidales in fact be more "correct"?
>> Since 2010,
>> > > > > according to Google Scholar there are 1,760 hits for
>> Bennettitales vs. 121
>> > > > > for Cycadeoidales. Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny, 2015 use
>> > > > > Cycadeoideopsida/Cycadeoidales whereas Taylor et al., 2009 use
>> > > > > Bennettitales with family Cycadeoidaceae.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Doweld, 2016b writes:
>> > > > > "The conservation of Cycadeoidea becomes more important and
>> needed to
>> > > > > legitimize (under the revised provisions in Art. 6.4, 18.3, &
>> 19.6 of the
>> > > > > Melbourne Code) the current use of a distinct family name for
>> this group of
>> > > > > fossils, Cycadeoideaceae Buckland ex Fitton (Geol. Sketch
>> Hastings: 77. 26
>> > > > > Jan 1833 (‘Cycadeoideae’)). Although the other available
>> suprageneric names
>> > > > > in current use such as: ordinal (Cycadeoideales E.W. Berry in Pl.
>> World 19:
>> > > > > 36. 1916 (‘Cycadeiodales’)), subordinal (Cycadeoideineae Němejc,
>> l.c. 1968:
>> > > > > 265), subclass (Cycadeoideidae Němejc, l.c. 1968: 275), class
>> > > > > (Cycadeoideopsida D.H. Scott (l.c.) (‘Cycadeoideae’)) and phylum
>> names
>> > > > > (Cycadeoideophyta T.N. Taylor (l.c.) (‘Cycadeoidophyta’)) are not
>> made
>> > > > > illegitimate, by the illegitimacy of the generic name from which
>> they are
>> > > > > formed, it would be undesirable to have all the suprafamilial
>> nomenclature
>> > > > > of this fossil plant group based on a different genus from that
>> of the
>> > > > > family and changed into that derived from the alternative fossil
>> cycadeoid
>> > > > > generic name, Bennettites Carruth., which is also available and
>> sometimes
>> > > > > alternatively used in modern palaeobotany such as the family
>> Bennettitaceae
>> > > > > Lignier (in Nature 50: 595. 1894 (‘Bennettiteae’) (even although
>> > > > > Cycadeoideaceae has priority), suborder Bennettitineae D.H.
>> Campbell (Univ.
>> > > > > Text-book Bot.: 347. 1902 (‘Bennettiteae’)), order Bennettitales
>> Bessey (in
>> > > > > Trans. Amer. Microscop. Soc. 29: 94. 1910), subclass Bennettitidae
>> > > > > Davitashvili (Kurs Paleontol.: 701. 1949 (‘Bennettitales’)), class
>> > > > > Bennettitopsida Engler (l.c. (‘Bennettitales’)) and phylum
>> Bennettitophyta
>> > > > > Kravtsov & Poljarnaja (l.c.). The legitimization of
>> Cycadeoidea-derived
>> > > > > suprageneric nomenclature will provide stabilization in the whole
>> > > > > classification of extinct gymnosperms."
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > References cited:
>> > > > > Doweld, A.B. (2016a). The nomenclature of Cycadeoidea (fossil
>> > > > > Spermatophyta: Cycadeoideopsida). Taxon 65: 372-379
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Doweld, A.B. (2016b) (2436–2437) Proposals to conserve the names
>> > > > > Cycadeoidea against Mantellia and
>> > > > > C. megalophylla against M. nidiformis (fossil Spermatophyta:
>> > > > > Cycadeoideopsida), TAXON 65: 397–399
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.12705%2F652.29&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QbpvnPH9JE9DfF4J0BLbSUu3rhtkGVtD23DWcgGRGMw%3D&reserved=0
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.12705%2F652.29&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QbpvnPH9JE9DfF4J0BLbSUu3rhtkGVtD23DWcgGRGMw%3D&reserved=0
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Novikoff, A. & Barabasz-Krasny, B. (2015) System of Embryophytes.
>> In:
>> > > > > Novikoff, A. & Barabasz-Krasny, B. Modern Plant Systematics.
>> Liga-Pres,
>> > > > > Lviv, Ukraine, pp. 23–63.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Taylor, T.N., Taylor, E. & Krings, M. (2009) Paleobotany—The
>> Biology and
>> > > > > Evolution of Fossil Plants. Second Edition. Elsevier/Academic
>> Press,
>> > > > > Amsterdam, Boston, etc., 1252 pp.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Zijlstra, Gea; van Konijnenburg-van Cittert, Johanna H.A. (2014).
>> A
>> > > > > nomenclatural note on Monanthesia and Bennettites. Review of
>> Palaeobotany
>> > > > > and Palynology, 203: 1–2. doi:10.1016/j.revpalbo.2014.01.001
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -----------------
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2: Class Langiophytopsida Doweld, 2001 (?) vs. Class
>> Horneophytopsida
>> > > > > Němejc, 1960
>> > > > > by extension: Division (=Phylum) Langiophytophyta Doweld, 2001
>> vs. Division
>> > > > > (=Phylum) Horneophyta
>> > > > > order Langiophytales Doweld vs. order Horneophytales
>> > > > > family Langiophytaceae Doweld vs. family Horneophytaceae
>> > > > > (included genera according to Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny: Caia
>> Fanning et
>> > > > > al., † Horneophyton Bargh. et Darrah, † Hostinella Barrande ex
>> D.R.J. Stur,
>> > > > > † Langiophyton Remy et Hass., † Pectinophyton O.A. Høeg, †
>> Salopella
>> > > > > Edwards et Richardson,† Taeniocrada D. White,† Tarrantia Fanning
>> et al.,†
>> > > > > Tortilicaulis D.S. Edwards)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Langiophytopsida (etc.) is used in Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Horneophytopsida has 55 hits in Google Scholar (all years),
>> > > > > Langiophytopsida has none... (the Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny
>> chapter has
>> > > > > apparently disappeared, although is accessible via the Internet
>> Archive).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Horneophytaceae has a few hits in Google Scholar (all years),
>> > > > > Langiophytaceae has none.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Horneophytopsida is used in e.g. Cascales-Miñana, Borja; Steemans,
>> > > > > Philippe; Servais, Thomas; Lepot, Kevin; Gerrienne, Philippe
>> (2019). An
>> > > > > alternative model for the earliest evolution of vascular plants.
>> Lethaia,
>> > > > > (), –. doi:10.1111/let.12323
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Horneophyton was named by E.S. Barghoorn & W.C. Darrah, 1938, as a
>> > > > > replacement for the preoccupied genus name Hornea Kidston & Lang,
>> 1920;
>> > > > > Langiophyton by W. Remy & H. Hass, 1991, they are believed to
>> represent
>> > > > > portions of the same plant (sporophyte vs. gametophyte), which
>> are allowed
>> > > > > to be validly published as separate genera in fossil botany.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Division (phylum) Horneophyta does not seem to be validly
>> published
>> > > > > although it is used in some texts. Horneophytopsida dates from
>> Němejc,
>> > > > > 1960; Langiophytopsida dates from Doweld, 2001.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thoughts / opinions very welcome, to assist me in erecting a
>> preferred
>> > > > > classification for these groups, which are certainly important in
>> the plant
>> > > > > fossil record.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 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%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AyltQlfya64xjlFPV84Dg1azcpi9I2eucSByUbffKDc%3D&reserved=0
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2FTonyRees&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AyltQlfya64xjlFPV84Dg1azcpi9I2eucSByUbffKDc%3D&reserved=0
>> > > > >
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1DAsl2FZ3sTZKBc1WRWcetF2Bb%2BXdKAKg7uA1yWncTY%3D&reserved=0
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1DAsl2FZ3sTZKBc1WRWcetF2Bb%2BXdKAKg7uA1yWncTY%3D&reserved=0
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > Taxacom Mailing List
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> > > > > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu mailto:taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>> > > > > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=I94aQykm7441IToBjkxP0s00zcf9oo%2F2bu7K0QTuEm0%3D&reserved=0
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=I94aQykm7441IToBjkxP0s00zcf9oo%2F2bu7K0QTuEm0%3D&reserved=0
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years,
>> 1987-2022.
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Taxacom Mailing List
>> > > >
>> > > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> mailto:taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> > > > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> > > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu mailto:taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>> > > > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=I94aQykm7441IToBjkxP0s00zcf9oo%2F2bu7K0QTuEm0%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >
>> > > > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years,
>> 1987-2022.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cd1608b345ecf428ee97608da2d988eff%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637872431249130304%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=I94aQykm7441IToBjkxP0s00zcf9oo%2F2bu7K0QTuEm0%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 35 years, 1987-2022.
>>
>