Doweld • (2152–2174) Conserve spelling of 23 names of fossil plants
TAXON 62 (3) • June 2013: 638–642
systematic treatment of fossil Marattiaceae, we propose to conserve the name Marattiopsis Schimp. (fossil Marattiaceae) with a new type. The species names that most commonly appear in the literature, i.e., Marattiopsis muensteri (Goepp.) Schimp., 1874 (l.c.: 652), M. hoerensis (Schimp.) Schimp., 1874 (l.c.: 652), M. intermedia (Münster) R. Weber (in Erlanger Geol. Abh. 72: 42. 1968; possibly the senior synonym of M. muensteri following Kilpper in Palaeontographica Abt. B, Paläophytol. 114: 22f. 1964), and M. asiatica Kawas. (in Bull. Geol. Surv. Chosen 4(3): 50. 1939) have complicated taxonomic and nomenclatural histories (see, e.g., Kilpper, l.c.). No types were ever designated for any of these species names, and the repositories of the original specimens are unknown (Schimper’s material is thought to have vanished during a fire in the Strasbourg Museum in 1967). Furthermore, taxonomic delimitation of some of these species remains problematic (see, e.g., Harris in Meddel. Grønl. 85: 64. 1931; Kilpper l.c.; Schweitzer & al., l.c.). Other well-known species, e.g., Marattia barnardii Schweitzer & al. (l.c.: 156) and Marattia aghanzenensis Shu Yang & al. (l.c.: 474), seem indistinguishable from extant Ptisana, and future analyses of fertile structures might make it possible to describe them as fossil representatives of that genus. We therefore suggest that the most practical solution will be to select Marattiopsis crenulata B. Lundbl. (in Kungl. Svenska
Vetenskapsakad. Handl., ser. 4, 1(8): 14. 1950) to provide the new type for Marattiopsis, because: (1) this is arguably a well-known and well-delimited species that is unlikely to become synonymized in future taxonomic treatments (see, e.g., Van Konijnenburg-van Cittert in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 20: 209. 1975; Yang & al., l.c.); (2) this species shows a combination of characters (including, e.g., prominent ‘venuli recurrentes’) that can be expected to prevent future assignment to any of the living genera; and (3) typification does not pose any problems, as the name of this species has a clearly designated holotype that is currently housed at the Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, under accession number SE054039a. Acknowledgements We wish to thank John McNeill (Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh) for his help in nomenclatural issues, and Lea GrauvogelStamm (Louis Pasteur University, Strasbourg), Harufumi Nishida (Chuo University, Tokyo), Atsushi Yabe, and Kazuhiko Uemura (National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo) for their valuable assistance in locating material and literature. Financial support was provided by the Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation (Feodor Lynen fellowship to BB) and the National Science Foundation (Grant ANT0943934 to ELT and TNT).
(2152–2174) Proposals to conserve the names Abiespollenites, Alatisporites, Apiculatasporites, Cicatricosisporites, Densosporites, Elongatosporites, Faguspollenites, Gnetaceaepollenites, Granulatisporites, Juglanspollenites, Palaeoavena, Piceaepollenites, Poacordaites, Pseudoaraucaria, Quercipollenites, Sabalpollenites, Sequoiapollenites, Setosisporites, Sparganiaceaepollenites, Tuberculatisporites, Ulmipollenites, Valvisporites, Verrucosisporites (fossil plants), all hyphenated when published, with these spellings Alexander B. Doweld National Institute of Carpology (Gaertnerian Institution), 21 Konenkowa Street, 127560 Moscow, Russian Federation;
[email protected]
(2152)
Abiespollenites Thiergart ex Raatz in Abh. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst., ser. 2, 183: 16. 26 Jan 1938 [‘1937’] (‘Abiespollenites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: A. absolutus Thiergart ex Raatz
(2153)
Alatisporites Ibrahim, Sporenf. Aegirhoriz. Ruhr-Reviers: 32. 8–15 Oct 1933 (‘Alati-sporites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: A. pustulatus (Ibrahim) Ibrahim (Sporonites pustulatus Ibrahim)
(2154)
Apiculatasporites Ibrahim, Sporenf. Aegirhoriz. RuhrReviers: 37. 8–15 Oct 1933 (‘Apiculata-sporites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: A. spinulistratus (Loose) Ibrahim (Sporonites spinulistratus Loose)
638
(2155)
Cicatricosisporites R. Potonié & Gelletich in Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 1932: 522. 15 Mar 1933 (‘Cicatricosi-sporites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: C. dorogensis R. Potonié & Gelletich See also discussion below.
(2156)
Densosporites W. Berry in Amer. Midl. Naturalist 18: 157. Jan 1937 (‘Denso-sporites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: D. covensis W. Berry See also discussion below.
(2157)
Elongatosporites W. Berry in Amer. Midl. Naturalist 18: 158. Jan 1937 (‘Elongato-sporites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: E. reticulatus W. Berry
Version of Record (identical to print version).
Doweld • (2152–2174) Conserve spelling of 23 names of fossil plants
TAXON 62 (3) • June 2013: 638–642
(2158)
Faguspollenites Raatz in Abh. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst., ser. 2, 183: 23. 26 Jan 1938 [‘1937’] (‘Fagus-pollenites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: F. verus Raatz
(2169)
Setosisporites Ibrahim, Sporenf. Aegirhoriz. Ruhr-Reviers: 26. 8–15 Oct 1933 (‘Setosi-sporites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: S. hirsutus (Loose) Ibrahim (Sporonites hirsutus Loose)
(2159)
Gnetaceaepollenites Thiergart in Jahrb. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst. 58: 307. 10 Jan 1938 (‘Gnetaceae-pollenites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: G. ellipticus Thiergart
(2170)
Sparganiaceaepollenites Thiergart in Jahrb. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst. 58: 307. 10 Jan 1938 (‘Sparganiaceae-pollenites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: S. polygonalis Thiergart.
(2160)
Granulatisporites Ibrahim, Sporenf. Aegirhoriz. RuhrReviers: 21. 8–15 Oct 1933 (‘Granulati-sporites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus (vide R. Potonié & Kremp in Geol. Jahrb. 69: 126. 30 Mar 1954): G. granulatus Ibrahim See also discussion below.
(2171)
Tuberculatisporites Ibrahim, Sporenf. Aegirhoriz. RuhrReviers: 22. 8–15 Oct 1933 (‘Tuberculati-sporites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: T. tuberosus (Ibrahim) Ibrahim (Sporonites tuberosus Ibrahim) See also discussion below.
(2161)
Juglanspollenites Raatz in Abh. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst., ser. 2, 183: 18. 26 Jan 1938 [‘1937’] (‘Juglans-pollenites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: J. verus Raatz
(2172)
Ulmipollenites Wolff in Arbeiten Inst. Paläobot. 5: 75. 14 Feb 1935 [‘1934’] (‘Ulmi-pollenites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: U. undulosus Wolff.
(2162)
Palaeoavena Ettingsh., Foss. Fl. Schönegg 1: 16. 14–20 Jun 1890 [preprinted from Denkschr. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math.-Naturwiss. Kl. 57: 77. 21–28 Feb 1891] (‘Palaeo-Avena’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: P. stipiformis Ettingsh. (‘stipaeformis’)
(2173)
Valvisporites Ibrahim, Sporenf. Aegirhoriz. Ruhr-Reviers: 33. 8–15 Oct 1933 (‘Valvisi-sporites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: V. trilobus (Ibrahim) Ibrahim (Sporonites trilobus Ibrahim) See also discussion below.
(2163)
Piceaepollenites R. Potonié in Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 1931: 28. 15 Jul 1931 (‘Piceae-pollenites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: P. alatus R. Potonié
(2174)
(2164)
Poacordaites Grand’Eury ex Brongn. in Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci. 75: 403. 12 Aug 1872 (‘Poa-Cordaites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus (vide Andrews in Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv. 1013: 214. 1955): P. latifolius (Göppert) Grand’Eury (Poacites latifolius Göppert)
Verrucosisporites Ibrahim, Sporenf. Aegirhoriz. Ruhr-Reviers: 25. 8–15 Oct 1933 (‘Verrucosi-sporites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: V. verrucosus (Ibrahim) Ibrahim (Sporonites verrucosus Ibrahim) See also discussion below.
(2165)
Pseudoaraucaria Fliche in Bull. Soc. Sci. Nancy, ser. 2, 14: 181. 1896 (‘Pseudo-Araucaria’), orth. cons. prop. Typus (vide Andrews in Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. 1013: 220. 1955): P. loppinetii Fliche (‘loppineti’)
(2166)
Quercipollenites Wolff in Arbeiten Inst. Paläobot. 5: 71. 14 Feb 1935 [‘1934’] (‘Querci ?-pollenites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: Q. callosus Wolff
(2167)
Sabalpollenites Thiergart ex Raatz in Abh. Preuss. Geol. Landesanst., ser. 2, 183: 30. 26 Jan 1938 [‘1937’] (‘Sabalpollenites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: S. convexus Thiergart ex Raatz
(2168)
Sequoiapollenites Thiergart in Jahrb. Preuss. Geol. Landes anst. 58: 301. 10 Jan 1938 (‘Sequoia-pollenites’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: S. polyformosus Thiergart (‘poliformosus’)
In the earliest palaeopalynology publications, those in the 1930s and 1940s, the formation of new generic names for fossil spores and pollen was nearly always done with the assistance of a hyphen, e.g., Setosi-sporites, Granulati-sporites, and Gnetaceae-pollenites, etc. Such a common practice was thought at that time to be selfillustrative and easy for recognition of attribution of fossil spores or pollen to formal morphological groupings. Such a practice served to emphasize the distinctness of the standardized endings -sporites or -pollenites when long (Gnetaceae-pollenites) or nearly similar (Verrucosi-sporites Ibrahim vs. Verrucoso-sporites Knox) generic names were created. However, hyphenated spelling soon disappeared from use in such generic names: perhaps it was a first step towards simplification of lengthy names (Andrews in Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv. 1013: 102, 107, 131, 145, 152, 164, etc. 1955), and such dehyphenated forms have entered solidly and widely into modern palynological literature (e.g., Synopses of Sporae Dispersae: Potonié & Kremp in Geol. Jahrb. 69: 47, 64. 1954; Potonié in Beih. Geol. Jahrb. 23: 27, 87. 1956, 31: 102. 1958, 39: 57, 118, 127, 152. 1960, 72: 27, 32, 64, 106. 1966, 87: 54. 1970, 94: 170. 1970; in Fortschr. Geol. Rheinl. Westf. 25: 73, 93. 1975). Since Art. 60.1 of the ICN (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) does not allow the omission of hyphens from generic names as a “correction”: it requires a conservation procedure (see Art. 60 Note 3) In order to maintain established custom in modern palynology of using fossil spore and pollen generic names without their original hyphens, formal proposals are presented to conserve the above names with their commonly used spelling.
Version of Record (identical to print version).
639
Doweld • (2152–2174) Conserve spelling of 23 names of fossil plants
TAXON 62 (3) • June 2013: 638–642
In addition to the 20 fossil dehyphenated generic names used for spores and pollen proposed for formal conservation, three fossil generic names in current use, established for macroremnants of plants, were noticed as having similarly lost their original hyphenated form: Palaeoavena Ettingsh. (l.c.) (Palaeo-Avena), Poacordaites Grand’Eury ex Brongn. (l.c.) (Poa-Cordaites) and Pseudoaraucaria Fliche (l.c.) (Pseudo-Araucaria). In this connection, these names are also included in this set of formal proposals to conserve their established usage (vide Andrews, l.c.) in accord with requirements of the Code. A few of the generic names proposed above for conservation without the hyphen that was part of their original spelling have additional nomenclatural complications, commonly the existence of other very similar generic names (“parahomonyms”). These are discussed below.
be rejected; there is no necessity to ascribe validating authorship of Schizaeoisporites to Delcourt & Sprumont (in Mém. Soc. Belge Géol., ser. 2, 5: 46. 1955) [Schizaeosporites Danzé-Corsin & Laveine in Mém. Soc. Géol. Nord 13: 62. 1963 is a further alternative, abbreviated spelling, not a new name] and hence to treat this generic name as a junior nomenclatural synonym of Cicatricososporites. Therefore, on the contrary, Cicatricososporites is an obligate junior nomenclatural synonym of Schizaeoisporites, and as such does not contribute any confusion to the present proposal to conserve the spelling of the older Cicatricosisporites (1933). In sum, it should be recommended to avoid use of such nearly identical generic fossil spore names in palaeopalynology, especially in the same work (as done by Thomson & Pflug, l.c. 1953; Krutzsch, l.c. 1970); clarification of the nomenclatural status of Cicatricososporites as an illegitimate, nomenclaturally superfluous name allows legitimate use of Schizaeoisporites.
(2155) The confused nomenclatural status of Cicatricosi-spor ites R. Potonié & Gelletich (l.c.) as an independent generic name led to the publication of the superfluous and nomenclaturally illegitimate generic name Mohrioidites Thiergart (in Geol. Jahrb. 65: 84. 1950), which is based on the same species (C. dorogensis) as Cicatricosi-sporites and not used since in palaeobotanical papers. Krutzsch (in Beih. Z. Geol. 21–22: 167. 1959) clarified the description and lectotypification of C. dorogensis, restricting it to trilete fossil spores and excluding different monolete forms placing them in the similarly spelled new genus Cicatricososporites Pflug & Thomson (in Palaeontographica, Abt. B, Paläophytol. 94: 61. Mar 1953). Both generic names, Cicatricosi-sporites and Cicatricososporites, are used in parallel in the same works (vide Krutzsch, l.c. 1959; Krutzsch in Jahrb. Geol. 3: 310, 321. 1970) and contribute real confusion for users of these names. However, after numerous changes in the Code as it relates to fossil names, and the deletion of the old concepts of organ- and morphotaxa from the current Melbourne Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012), Cicatricososporites has become a nomenclaturally superfluous, illegitimate generic name based on previously validly published Schizaeoisporites R. Potonié (in Palaeontographica, Abt. B, Paläophytol. 91: 144. 1951), which was published as a genericospecific morphotaxon (now fossil taxon under the current Code). In the 1950s, different terminological language and concepts in palaeobotanical nomenclature were used, which are rejected now and substituted by more simplified rules changing retroactively the confused nomenclature of many fossils. When Pflug & Thomson erected their Cicatricososporites as a “Formgattung” (morphogenus) [by the way, in the same publication they used the similarly spelled Cicatricosisporites on p. 48], they based this new genus on Schizaeoisporites pseudodorogensis R. Potonié (l.c. 1951), but did not mention explicitly Potonié’s binomial, limiting themselves merely to citation of his illustrations of fossil spores (Potonié, l.c. 1951: t. 20, f. 10). Jansonius & Hills (Gen. File Foss. Spores: 468, 2530. Jul 1976) erroneously thought that Potonié had based his new genus and species on the previously described species Sporites pseudodorogensis Thiergart (in Geol. Jahrb. 65: 84. 1950): “Potonié’s genus may not be accepted because its type has been published earlier; a new monotypic genus not based on a new species, must be validated with a diagnosis which is lacking in Potonié 1951”. But this is not true because Potonié (l.c. 1951) never referred to Thiergart’s species in the protologue of his new genus and species, and thereby fulfilled requirements of the Code for a combined genericspecific validating description for a new genus and species. In this connection, the erroneous analysis of Jansonius & Hills (l.c.) should 640
(2156) Formal approval of the removal of the hyphen in the long established unhyphenated spelling Densosporites instead of the original Denso-sporites raises a further question of whether this spelling is sufficiently alike to be confused with Densoisporites Weyland & Krieger (in Palaeontographica, Abt. B, Paläophytol. 95: 12. 1953), established originally for younger distinct Cretaceous spores. There should perhaps be a wide discussion among palaeopalynologists as to whether such names are sufficiently alike to be confused, and if so, a formal request for a binding decision should be formulated to treat Densoisporites Weyland & Krieger, also in current use (Jansonius & Hills, l.c.; Oshurkova, l.c.), as a later homonym of Densosporites W. Berry. (2160) The conservation of Granulati-sporites with dehyphenated spelling does not affect the nomenclatural status of two similar later generic names, Granulatasporites (Leschik in Schweiz. Paläontol. Abh. 72: 29. Feb 1956) and Granulatosporites Dybová & Jachowicz (in Prace Inst. Geol. (Warszawa) 23: 191. 10–31 Dec 1957). Granulatasporites is a small genus of ill-defined species, once described from Upper Triassic age from Central Europe and never re-studied since; its likeness in spelling to Granulati-sporites is obvious, and a request will be made under Art. 53.5 for a ruling that these names are sufficiently alike to be confused. Granulatosporites Dybová & Jachowicz (l.c.) is an illegitimate, later renaming of the widely used Punctato-sporites Ibrahim (l.c.), because its authors thought that the pointed to punctate type of ultrastructure of its spores did not suite its original name. Their new generic name, Granulatosporites, has not been accepted in palynological literature (Potonié in Beih. Geol. Jahrb. 39: 69. 1960). (2171) The generic name Tuberculatosporites Imgrund ex Potonié & Kremp (in Geol. Jahrb. 69: 166. 30 Mar 1954), seemingly sufficiently alike to be confused with the earlier Tuberculati-sporites Ibrahim, was based on distinctive spinose bilateral monolete acavate and azonate microspores from the Kaiping Basin, China (distinct Cathaysian palaeocontinent in the past) (Oshurkova, l.c. 215. 2003). Both generic names in unhyphenated form of spelling are so similar that there is need for a binding decision under Art. 53.5 so that the Chinese fossil spore name may be rejected as a later homonym. Such a request is being made. (2173) The spelling Valvisisporites was used instead of the hyphenated form, the hyphen being omitted as long ago as the 1950s (Potonié in Beih. Geol. Jahrb. 39: 56. 1960 & l.c. 72: 78. 1966; Zoldani
Version of Record (identical to print version).
TAXON 62 (3) • June 2013: 638–642
Doweld • (2152–2174) Conserve spelling of 23 names of fossil plants
in Prace Inst. Geol. (Warszawa) 46: 81. 1966; Jansonius & Hills, l.c.); however, the alternative, abridged version, Valvisporites, was mistakenly listed (mistyped?) by Andrews in his influential “Index of Generic Names of Fossil Plants” (in Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv. 1013: 256. 1955), accepted and continued in use (Gastaldo in J. Alabama Acad. Sci. 51: 189. 1980; Kedves, Transm. Electr. Microsc. Foss. Spores: 93. 1996; Traverse, Paleopalynology, ed. 2: 253. 2008); this variant is preferred in modern works and so this spelling is proposed above for conservation.
Verrucosi-sporites Ibrahim 1933 vs. Verrucosisporites Dybová & Jachowicz 1957: The unhyphenated parahomonym of Verrucosisporites Ibrahim, Verrucosisporites Dybová & Jachowicz (l.c.), appeared originally as a new genus (gen. nov.), but is at present included in Verrucosi-sporites Ibrahim (vide Ağrali & Konyali in Bull. Miner. Res. Explor. Inst. Turkey, foreign ed., 73: 55. 1969; A.H.V. Smith in Microfoss. Organ. Paléoz. 4: 52. 1971; Oshurkova, l.c. 2003: 75), although its type, V. adenotatus Dybová & Jachowicz, is treated as an ill-understood fossil form that is in need of further investigations and re-description. Since the 1970s no further studies of Dybová & Jachowicz original material have been undertaken and the genus as well as its several species are omitted from the general revised synopsis of fossil spores of Poland (vide Kmiecik in Pajchlowa, Budowa Geol. Polski 3(1c-z, 2): 572–771. 2001). Conservation of Verrucosisporites Ibrahim would establish Verrucosisporites Dybová & Jachowicz as an illegitimate later homonym.
(2174) A number of generic names spelled very similarly to Verrucosisporites Ibrahim (‘Verrucosi-sporites’) (l.c. 1933) have been published. These are as follows (in the order of appearance): • Verrucoso-sporites E.M. Knox in Trans. Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinburgh 35: 316. 23 Jun 1950, nom. superfl. & illeg. (≡ Verrucosisporites Ibrahim 1933) – Type: V. verrucosus (Ibrahim) Ibrahim (Sporonites verrucosus Ibrahim) • Verrucososporites Potonié & Kremp in Geol. Jahrb. 69: 166. 1954 (= Thymospora Wilson & Venkatachala 1963) – Type: V. obscurus (Kosanke) Potonié & Kremp (Laevigatosporites obscurus Kosanke) • Verrucosisporites Dybová & Jachowicz in Prace Inst. Geol. (Warszawa) 23: 93. 10–31 Dec 1957 (= Verrucosi-sporites Ibrahim 1933) – Type: V. adenotatus Dybová & Jachowicz In addition Loose (in Arbeiten Inst. Paläobot. 4: 143, 157. 20 Apr 1934) published “Verrucosa-sporites Ibrahim”, based on Sporonites perverrucosus Loose (in Neues Jahrb. Mineral. Geol. Beilageband, Abt. B, Geol. Paläontol. 67: 451, f. 48. 23 Mar 1932). Loose did not provide a generic diagnosis or description and so, even if not considered a mere mis-spelling of Ibrahim’s name, it would not be a validly published generic name, and indeed has fallen into oblivion. Verrucosi-sporites Ibrahim vs. Verrucoso-sporites E.M. Knox & Verrucososporites Potonié & Kremp: Verrucoso-sporites E.M. Knox (l.c.) unhappily included the type of Verrucosi-sporites Ibrahim (V. verrucosus (Ibrahim) E.M. Knox, l.c. 1950: 319), and thus it is no more than a superfluous, later nomenclatural synonym of Ibrahim’s name. Therefore, since Knox did not indicate a type of her generic name, ‘typification’ of Verrucoso-sporites by V. obscurus (Kosanke) R. Potonié & Kremp (Laevigatosporites obscurus Kosanke in Bull. Illinois Geol. Surv. 74: 29. 1950), done by Potonié & Kremp (l.c.), is inadmissible, as under Art. 7.5 the type is that of Verrucosi-sporites Ibrahim. Moreover, Potonié & Kremp’s choice was also incorrect since the species they selected was not included by Knox in her genus and so was not eligible as type. Technically speaking, Potonié & Kremp created a later parahomonym Verrucososporites in 1954 of Verrucoso-sporites Knox, because they also recognised (l.c.: 137) “Verrucosisporites (Ibrahim 1933) emend.” including V. verrucosus. This was later realized by Potonié himself (in Geol. Jahrb. 94: 13. 1970 [wrongly spelled as ‘Verrucosporites’ and ‘Verrucossporites’] & in Fortschr. Geol. Rheinl. Westfal. 25: 77. 1975), who correctly ascribed the authorship of their 1954 genus to ‘Potonié & Kremp 1954’, not to Knox 1950. Potonié (l.c. 1970: 13) correctly attributed spore types ascribed to their 1954 “emendation” of Knox’s genus to Thymospora Wilson & Venkatachala (in Oklahoma Geol. Notes 23: 76. Mar 1963), which is now in current use. The type of Verrucososporites Potonié & Kremp non Knox, Laevigatosporites obscurus Kosanke, is now applied to a well-accepted species of Thymospora, T. obscura (Kosanke) Wilson & Venkatachala (l.c.) (vide Oshurkova, l.c.). Both illegitimate generic names of the 1950s, Verrucoso-sporites Knox and Verrucososporites Potonié & Kremp, are now in disuse.
In order to conform to TL-2’s bibliographical standard of precise citation, dates of publication of old works containing the conserved and rejected names discussed above were verified in special historical-bibliographical studies. The exact date of publication of Ettingshausen’s article, issued in Vienna, has been established from the weekly lists of all newly published books and important serials in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire (Österreichisch-Ungarische BuchhändlerCorrespondenz 31: 275. 21 Jun 1890), which shows that a separate preprint was published before the relevant volume of the Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften that was registered as newly published only on 21–28 Feb 1891 (Österreichisch-Ungarische Buchhändler-Correspondenz 32: 89. 28 Jun 1891); the preprint status of Ettingshausen’s article is confirmed as being received in Leipzig and registered in the daily lists of all newly published books in Germany and German-speaking countries (Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel 57: 3300. 20 Jun 1890). The exact publication date of the volumes of Arbeiten aus dem Institut für Paläobotanik und Petrographie der Brennsteine have been assigned from the dates of daily lists of all newly published books and serials in Germany by Deutsche Bücherei, Leipzig, on 20 April 1934 [vol. 4] (Tägliches Verzeichnis der Neuerscheinungen, Beilage zum Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel, 101: 450. 20 Apr 1934) and on 14 February 1935 [vol. 5 for 1934] (Archive records of receipt, German National Library, Leipzig; Tägliches Verzeichnis der Neuerscheinungen, Beilage zum Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel 102: 212, 19 Feb 1935). The exact date of public appearance of Ibrahim’s published dissertation has been extracted from the obligatory state bibliographic registration records of all books and serials newly published in Germany (shortly after they became in print) by what was formerly the Deutsche Bücherei in Leipzig (now the Leipzig branch of the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek), on 15 October 1933 (Deutsche Nationalbibliographie, Reihe B, 3: 951, # 484. 15 Oct 1933) [the range of dates reflecting the interval between the issuance of consecutive weekly numbers of Deutsche Nationalbibliographie]. The dissertation of Raatz (Mikrobotanisch-stratigraphische Untersuchung der Braunkohle des Muskauer Bogens) was almost simultaneously published as a distinct dissertation published in Berlin by Hentschel (51 pp.) and as a part of Abhandlungen der Preussischen Geologischen Landesanstalt, N.F. Heft 183 for 1937 (published by Vertriebstelle of this organisation) (48 pp.). The exact publication date of his dissertation printed by Geological Survey has been found from the daily lists of all newly published books and serials in Germany as 26 Jan 1938 (Tägliches Verzeichnis der Neuerscheinungen,
Version of Record (identical to print version).
641
Errata and Corrigenda
TAXON 62 (3) • June 2013: 642
Beilage zum Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel 105: 131. 26 Jan 1938). The dissertation itself was received later by Deutsche Bücherei on 11 February 1938 (Archive records of receipt, German National Library, Leipzig). In this connection it seems correct to cite Raatz’s work from Abhandlungen than as a distinct dissertation in print, although both versions have 1937 on their title pages. The dissertation of Thiergart (Die Pollenflora der Niederlausitzer Braunkohle, besonders im Profil der Grube Marga bei Senftenberg) was published as a part of Jahrbuch der Preußischen Geologischen Landesanstalt zu Berlin, Band 58, 1937, part A (pp. 282–351). The date of 10 January 1938 was printed as the date of promotion (when publicly available in print in Germany, although a misleading note also appears: “Druckauftrag erteilt am 6. Dezember
1937”), which reflects no more than date of the manuscript going into press, not when the paper was available after printing. It is noteworthy that the complete volume of Jahrbuch der Preußischen Geologischen Landesanstalt zu Berlin, Band 58, 1937, part A was published significantly later by Grunwald & Casimir in Berlin and registered as just published only on 17 June 1939 (Archive records of receipt, German National Library, Leipzig). In conclusion, the earliest version of Thiergart’s work is the preprint from the Jahrbuch. Acknowledgements The research is a contribution to the Palaeoflora Europaea Project and Palaeoflora of Russia (Palaeoflora Rossica) Project (NOM13-2987).
E r r ata a n d co r r i g e n da Taxon 61(5)
Proposal 2087 to maintain the current application of Rhizocarpon oederi Per M. Jørgensen Museum of Natural History, University of Bergen, Allégt. 41, Box 7800, 5020 Bergen, Norway;
[email protected]
An unfortunate error was made in my paper “(2087) Proposal to conserve the name Lichen oederi Weber (Rhizocarpon oederi) against L. oederi Gunnerus and L. koenigii Gunnerus (lichenized Ascomycota)” (Jørgensen in Taxon 61: 1121. 2012): The basionym cited by Körber (Parerga Lichenol.: 232. 1861) when publishing the new combination Rhizocarpon oederi was not Lichen oederi Weber (Spicil. Fl. Goett.: 182. 1778) as usually recorded, e.g., by the monographer Feuerer (in Biblioth. Lichenol. 79: 147. 1991), but Lecidea oederi Ach. (Methodus: 49. 1803). As Lichen oederi Weber is either an illegitimate later homonym of L. oederi Gunnerus (Fl. Norveg. 2: 131. 1776) or else a later isonym of that name, it could not serve as a basionym, whereas Lecidea oederi Ach. represents the first use of the epithet in a legitimate name. Acharius’s Lichen oederi in Lichenographia Suecica (1799) is illegitimate as he cited Lichen koenigii Gunnerus and its holotype, the Flora Danica plate. In Methodus this illustration is included with a question mark, and so Acharius does not definitely include the type of that or any earlier name; he also notes his uncertainty regarding other synonyms, presumably those that he had included earlier. Fortunately this does not affect the thrust of the proposal, nor any of the arguments for the desirability of conservation to preserve the usage of Rhizocarpon oederi. However the basionym being proposed for conservation must change and there is no longer need for formal rejection of Lichen oederi Gunnerus, which nevertheless makes Weber’s homonym illegitimate. Lichen oederi Gunnerus, although now established as referable to Rhizocarpon petraeum (Wulfen) A. Massal. (Jørgensen & Timdal in Graphis Scripta 25: 16. 2013), is not available for use in Rhizocarpon on account of R. oederi (Ach.) Körber, whether or not Lecidea oederi Ach. is conserved. The revised title and heading of the proposal are as follows:
642
(2087) Proposal to conserve the name Lecidea oederi Ach. (Rhizocarpon oederi) against L. koenigii Gunnerus (lichenized Ascomycota) with a conserved type (2087) Lecidea oederi Ach., Methodus: 49. 1803, nom. cons. prop. Typus: [France, Haute Savoie]: Auf Gneissfelsen bei Contamines, J. Müller in Hepp, Flecht. Eur. [exs.] No. 508 (L; isotypi: O, UPS) typ. cons. prop. (=) Lichen koenigii Gunnerus, Fl. Norveg. 2: 131. 1776, nom. rej. prop. Holotypus: [icon in] Oeder, Fl. Danica 3(8): 8. t. 470, f. 1. Epitypus (vide Jørgensen in Taxon 61: 1092. 2012): Iceland, Kjosarsysla, Kolafjördur by Mogilså, S. of Mt. Esja, 1969, S. Svane SS 290-4 (C) The reason for the proposed conserved type is that Acharius’s material (UPS, H) is mainly the rust-coloured form of Tremolecia atrata (Ach.) Hertel (= Lecidea dicksonii auct.) as already noted by Th. Fries (Lichenogr. Scand.: 627. 1874), when he changed the authorship to (Weber) Körber, an invalid action followed by most later authors. Since there is no doubt what Körber intended, I think it is best to typify the basionym of Rhizocarpon oederi (Ach.) Körber on a specimen Körber identified to this species, thus correcting the taxonomic mistake he made when choosing Lecidea oederi Ach. as a basionym for his lichen. Acknowledgements: I am most thankful to Teuvo Ahti, Helsinki, Linda in Arcadia, Patras, John McNeill, Edinburgh, Anders Nordin, Uppsala, and Einar Timdal, Oslo for assistance in clarifying this case which proved to be more complicated than first anticipated.
Version of Record (identical to print version).
