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

[Tony Rees]

OK, I have picked up further a couple of aspects since my last post on this
issue...

First, Takhtajan (1986) dates the family Horneophytaceae to Koidzumi, 1939,
as a nomen novum for Horneaceae Hirmer, 1927 (Horneophyton being a nom.
nov. for the original, preoccupied name). To me this seems that there is
even less justification for use of Langiophytaceae Doweld, 2001, since
priority definitely applies to botanical family-level names according to
ICNafp.

Second, in selecting between the division/phylum names Langiophytophyta
Doweld, 2001 and Horneophyta (or perhaps we should say Horneophytophyta to
be correct), Horneophyta gets 9 hits on Google Scholar (Horneophytophyta
does not get any) and/or Google Books (example search:
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Ftbm%3Dbks%26tbo%3Dp%26hl%3Den%26q%3DHorneophyta&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C969e98202f034daf74a708da32b8f33a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637878067183691545%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hCwkMh3w%2FE%2Fo8z5JYcb3yQ3fNEWHlnizU%2Fs%2BNpMyg9U%3D&reserved=0) but does
not appear to have been formally proposed. Does the latter fact affect its
availability for use? My impression from reading the ICNafp is that it does
not, but I would ideally like a second opinion, or several...

Thanks again for reading this thread!

-Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C969e98202f034daf74a708da32b8f33a%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637878067183691545%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=59x13DX6nKdlGLmkrnYxQ0QL9KvumiSIIDmvD4uV2lw%3D&reserved=0