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

[Tony Rees]

Well, in the absence of other information, here is my call for the 2022
version of my data compilation (https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C12d82b9a37df4798ae5008da2ed82831%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637873803159751826%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4tFjxpC6R%2FzY6aEUdmzFeWjfTy4C2%2FPS%2BHW9T6o%2FDtg%3D&reserved=0, see also
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mapress.com%2Fmt%2Farticle%2Fview%2Fmegataxa.1.2.3&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C12d82b9a37df4798ae5008da2ed82831%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637873803159751826%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ALxfQQBDQTL1w2CewI2SWyb0epr9Kb2qvAa0dzu6vSM%3D&reserved=0 for a summary
article based on the 2020 release) :

1: family names.

Based on ICNafp...
* 11.1. Each family or lower-ranked taxon with a particular
circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name ...
* 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

- For Cycadeoideaceae Buckland ex Fitton 1833 vs. Bennetitaceae Lignier,
1894 (‘Bennettiteae’) [Doweld, 2001 gave Potonie, 1897 as authorship for
this name], Cycadeoideaceae is the earliest name (especially since the
genus name Cycadeoidea Buckland, 1828 ex Lindley & Hutton, 1832, previously
threatened by Mantellia Brongniart, 1828, has now been conserved)

- For Horneophytaceae Darrah, 1960 [authorship as per Doweld, 2001] vs.
Langiophytaceae Doweld, 2001, Horneophytaceae is the earlier name and, if
not illegitimate per the Code (or other reason I am not aware of), should
be the family name of choice.

2. Names at higher ranks:

Per ICNafp:

* 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 [however...]
* 16A.1. In choosing among typified names for a taxon above the rank of
family, authors should generally follow the principle of priority.

So for the cycadeoids/bennettitaleans, per Doweld, 2016, we can use either
of (or a mixture...) :

order Cycadeoideales E.W. Berry, 1916 (‘Cycadeiodales’),
class Cycadeoideopsida D.H. Scott, 1923 (‘Cycadeoideae’)
phylum Cycadeoideophyta T.N. Taylor, 1981 (‘Cycadeoidophyta’)

vs.:
order Bennettitales Beesey, 1910
class Bennettitiopsida Engler, 1892 ('Bennettitales')
phylum Bennettitophyta Kravtsov & Polijarnaja, 1995

None of these are incorrect according to the Code, and indeed
Bennettitales/Bennettitiopsida  would be preferred according to priority
(Art. 16A.1), however for internal consistency I will use
Cycadeoideales/Cycadeoideopsida/Cycadeoideophyta as needed (also seems to
be a tendency with other recent publications), while noting the alternative
names are not incorrect.

For the horneophytes/langiophytes, we can use either of (or a mixture...) :

order Horneophytales Novák, 1961
class Horneophytidae Němejc, 1963 / Horneophytopsida S. V. Meyen, 1978
phylum?? (possibly not formally named)

vs:
order Langiophytales Doweld, 2001
class Langiophytopsida Doweld, 2001
phylum Langiophytophyta Doweld, 2001
class Langiophytopsida Doweld, 2001

Again, none of these are incorrect according to the Code. As noted above,
Doweld, Tropicos, https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bryonames.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C12d82b9a37df4798ae5008da2ed82831%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637873803159751826%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6UolV1EUeB4yUvkIgoaLwB9pTfkvNBnML3%2F%2FKzOpbbU%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bryonames.org%2Fnomenclator&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C12d82b9a37df4798ae5008da2ed82831%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637873803159751826%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pvzcUGH1ZEh0phb5khicBF545QyAeZdOzdNWgVY%2FowI%3D&reserved=0>,
and Novikoff & Barabasz-Krasny, 2015 all use the sequence based on
Langiophyton, while all other workers traceable via Google Scholar use the
sequence based on Horneophyton (just to recap, these are both valid/current
names for different aspects of the same fossil plant).

Per my discussion a few lines above, since Horneophytaceae is the earliest
published (and therefore correct) name for the family (and thus Tropicos
and https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bryonames.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C12d82b9a37df4798ae5008da2ed82831%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637873803159751826%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6UolV1EUeB4yUvkIgoaLwB9pTfkvNBnML3%2F%2FKzOpbbU%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bryonames.org%2Fnomenclator&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C12d82b9a37df4798ae5008da2ed82831%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637873803159751826%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pvzcUGH1ZEh0phb5khicBF545QyAeZdOzdNWgVY%2FowI%3D&reserved=0> are
apparently wrong in this respect), for the higher ranks I will stick with
using the sequence based on Horneophyton (for consistency with most other
published literature) even though Langiophytales, etc. is currently used in
some current major electronic resources (this seems to be a matter of
choice, not governed by the Code), with the option to change to the latter
if / when a suitable argument is presented...

Regards - Tony

>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>