Taxacom: Question to botanical experts RE ICNafp Code - rank changes for descriptive names, with changed termination

[Tony Rees]

Dear all,

I am seeking advice as to how a descriptive name above the rank of family
can be re-used, with a change in termination (to signify changed rank) with
or without a change in cited authorship and/or "stat. nov." - the latter
presumably requiring a formal publication.

The name in question is Eophytidae Edwards, Morris, Axe, Duckett, Pressel &
Kenrick, 2021, erected as a subclass within class Embryopsida, consistent
with the treatment of land plants by Chase & Reveal, 2009, except that
"Embryopsida" replaces the latter's "Equisetopsida".

This name is erected at a similar rank to bryophytes, marchantiophytes atc.
which are at equivalent rank i.e. subclass in the Chase & Reveal treatment.
However in other treatments such as that of Ruggiero et al., 2015, followed
in my own IRMNG system and elsewhere, bryyophytes, etc. are treated as
separate phyla within Embryophyta, which is represented as a superphylum.

So my requirement is to treat the "eophytes" (presently Eophytidae) as a
separate phylum, e.g. "Eophyta", where it will sit alongside
Anthocerotophyta, Bryophyta, Charophyta and so on. Note here, "Eophytidae"
is a "descriptive name" per the ICNafp (not based on a genus) so falls
under the provisions of Arts. 16 and 6.10, thus:
-------------
Article 16.1 Names above the rank of family
"… descriptive names … may be used unchanged at different ranks"
-------------
Article 6.10 Note 3
Note 3. A descriptive name (Art. 16.1(b)) used at a rank different from
that at which it was first validly published is not a name at new rank
because descriptive names may be used unchanged at different ranks.
-------------
So one reading of this is that Eophytidae may be recast as "Eophyta" (with
the same circumscription) without a change of authorship, and not requiring
a published "stat. nov.". However the alternative reading would be that a
published change of authorship would be needed, plus a "stat. nov.", since
although the initial portion of the name is unchanged, the termination is -
in other words the name is not "unchanged" in the sense of Art. 16.1.

Thoughts, advice appreciated.

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%7Ca99877caf82b463692c808db30a11613%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638157240647456318%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pNwAcHRYlZNi2o4I7amFFcqw%2F7bmAxyA7%2Bea4hdY5i0%3D&reserved=0
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ca99877caf82b463692c808db30a11613%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638157240647456318%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FfnL1mDmtSTYwGX81UZvI1ztPzb%2BAI%2BxZ2YfXCLIhgs%3D&reserved=0