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

[Tony Rees]

Well, looking around at descriptive names that have been used at different
ranks for other botanical groups - algae in this instance (not all names
currently in use but that does not affect the authorship), we seem to have:

Green algae: class Chlorophyceae Wille, 1884 / division (phylum)
Chlorophyta Pascher, 1914
Brown algae: class Phaeophyceae Kjellman, 1891 /  division (phylum)
Phaeophyta Wettstein (?1901)
Green algae: class Rhodophyceae Ruprecht, 1851 /  division (phylum)
Rhodophyta Wettstein, 1901

(authorities subject to confirmation)

which seems to indicate that when used at a changed rank (and with a new
termination), a descriptive name above family requires new authorship (and
by inference, a published work to support that...)

- Tony


On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 21:28, Paul van Rijckevorsel via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> Well, as indicated, /Magnoliophyta/ (a name formed from
> the generic name /Magnolia/) may be used in only one rank,
> but the taxon so indicated may have any of a number of
> circumscriptions.
>
> Names like /Embryophyta/ and /Streptophyta/ (descriptive
> names) may be used in any rank above that of family
> (although it would be decidedly odd to use them as names
> of orders or suborders), but the taxon indicated will have
> a fixed circumscription. Thus in my view, these names
> are the easier to use.
>
> Then there are descriptive names that historically, but
> not nomenclaturally, have been used as names for families,
> like /Coniferae/, /Cupuliferae/, /Scitamineae/. These could be
> awkward in a comprehensive database.
>
> Paul
>
> * * *
>
>
>
>