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

[Tony Rees]

Sorry, I inadvertently repeated one line "class Langiophytopsida Doweld,
2001" in the short summary classification just given above, please ignore
the second appearance of this line.

Regards - Tony


On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 06:44, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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%7Cea1142eb02d74e9f53a808da2ed8d07e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637873805998840047%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wVL%2FEukq5bw1zF6CxJ7U4GgWzwiXNpv7gs0Awqq%2FSPE%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%7Cea1142eb02d74e9f53a808da2ed8d07e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637873805998840047%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=O4rv%2BKovFDTMV1bHxDVgANp4aXC9QrvcQ%2FdmMqq6W6Q%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%7Cea1142eb02d74e9f53a808da2ed8d07e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637873805998840047%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZDqATcVQmgrrX8FEE018XKb2axibQ%2BO06gYImB0%2B%2Bs4%3D&reserved=0
> <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bryonames.org%2Fnomenclator&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea1142eb02d74e9f53a808da2ed8d07e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637873805998840047%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=G%2Bejewq6UMpLsyUaU5a2G6Q0lTiAEtpBA7qx99bsYKI%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%7Cea1142eb02d74e9f53a808da2ed8d07e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637873805998840047%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZDqATcVQmgrrX8FEE018XKb2axibQ%2BO06gYImB0%2B%2Bs4%3D&reserved=0 <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bryonames.org%2Fnomenclator&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea1142eb02d74e9f53a808da2ed8d07e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637873805998840047%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=G%2Bejewq6UMpLsyUaU5a2G6Q0lTiAEtpBA7qx99bsYKI%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
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>