Noltie • (2241) Reject Aquilicia samudraca
TAXON 62 (6) • December 2013: 1340
(2242) Proposal to conserve the name Calamodendron against Calamitea (fossil Equisetophyta: Calamitopsida) Alexander B. Doweld National Institute of Carpology (Gaertnerian Institution), 21 Konenkowa Street, 127560, Moscow, Russian Federation;
[email protected],
[email protected]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12705/626.30 (2242) (≡)
1340
Calamodendron Brongn. in d’Orbigny, Dict. Univ. Hist. Nat. 13: 99. 30 Jun–7 Jul 1849, nom. cons. prop. Typus: C. striatum (Cotta) Brongn. (Calamitea striata Cotta) Calamitea Cotta, Dendrolithen: 67. 3–10 Mar 1832 (typ. des. Pfeiffer, Nomencl. Bot. 1: 525. 27 Sep 1872), nom. rej. prop.
As early as the end of 19th century Seward (Foss. Pl. 1: 301. 1898) reported that the generic name “Calamitea is no longer in use”, and “Brongniart’s name Calamodendron is made to include the plants for which Cotta instituted the name Calamitea” (Seward, l.c.: 300). A distinct family was even created on the basis of Calamodendron:
Version of Record (identical to print version).
Doweld • (2242) Conserve Calamodendron
TAXON 62 (6) • December 2013: 1340–1341
Calamodendraceae Grand’Eury (in Mém. Acad. Sci. Inst. France 24: 282, 314. 1877. ‘Calamodendreae’) [which is, however, not in use in modern systematic palaeobotany]. However, Seward’s nomenclatural analysis was not quite correct in considering the two generic names as merely nomenclatural synonyms, something that has been widely accepted in palaeobotany since then. Cotta originally described four species in Calamitea, C. striata, C. bistriata, C. lineata and C. concentrica; Brongniart (l.c.) included in Calamodendron only two of them, C. striata and C. bistriata, the other two species were definitely excluded because their anatomical structure pointed to a different coniferalean (correctly cordaitalean) affinity, and now (Dijkstra in Jongmans & Dijkstra, Foss. Cat. Pl. 79: 52, 71, 76. 1971 & 81: 294. 1972) they are referred to the synonymy of species of Dadoxylon (≡ Araucarioxylon), see below. Pfeiffer (l.c.) typified Calamitea with C. striata Cotta, and as a result of this later typification, Calamodendron has become a superfluous name as it included when published the same type as Calamitea Cotta; it is not, however, illegitimate as Calamitea was not typified when Calamodendron was published and Brongniart did not include in it all elements eligible as type of Calamitea (Art. 52.2 of the ICN, McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012). This nomenclatural confusion has not hitherto been noted. Adhering strictly to Art. 51 and 11.3, Calamitea Cotta would have to replace Calamodendron Brongn.; no formal rejection of the earlier, and, until very recently, disused, generic name Calamitea, has ever been made to provide availability for the widely used Calamodendron (Art. 6.4). Little new can be added since Seward’s times regarding the continuing wide use of Calamodendron in various botanical and geological treatises and text-books (Renault in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Autun 11: 377. 1898; Scott, Stud. Foss. Bot.: 33. 1900 & ed. 3, 1: 396. 1920; Hirmer, Lehrb. Paläobot. 1: 396. 1927; Remy & Remy, Pflanzenfoss.: 66. 1959; Němejc, Paleobotanika 2: 313. 1963; Boureau, Traité Paléobot. 3: 323. 1964 & Sphénoph.: 103. 1971; Gothan & Weyland, Lehrb. Paläobot., ed. 1: 192. 1954 & ed. 3: 195. 1973; Lemoigne in Géobios Suppl. 10: 245. 1988; Doubinger & al. in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. Paris 164: 98. 1995; Barthel in Veröff. Naturhist. Mus. Schleusingen 19: 35. 2004) and the fall into oblivion of Calamitea. Except as noted below, the last record of the use of the name Calamitea was in the middle of 19th century by Ettingshausen (in Haidinger’s Naturwiss. Abh. 4(1): 82. 1851 and in Bronn, Lethaea Geogn., ed. 3, 1(1, 2): 103. 1854); since then the name has practically disappeared from palaeobotanical literature. In contrast to established custom, a new proposal has recently1 been advanced by Röβler & Noll (in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 144: 157. 2007) to resurrect the old, forgotten name Calamitea. The main rationale for such a step is the recognition of some errors in the generic diagnosis of Calamodendron Brongn. arising from the interpretation of the presence or absence of secondary xylem in the internal structure of these pith casts [which, by the way, have been repeated numerous times up to now in palaeobotanical works and text-books]. However, rejection of a generic name is not sanctioned by the modern Code on such weak grounds; all that is required is to change and correct the diagnosis and/or circumscription of the taxon. Moreover, authors strangely and wrongly stated that Calamitea consisted of two species instead of four (l.c. 158) and that Brongniart had included both in Calamodendron; the other two species belong to quite another group of extinct coniferalean plants! 1
Editor’s note: This conservation proposal was originally submitted in May 2010 and was editorially delayed.
These two aberrant Cotta species, Calamitea lineata and C. concentrica, showing cordaitalean type of wood, were both transferred into the synonymy of Dadoxylon as D. medullare (Lindl. & Hutton) Endl. (= C. lineata) and D. saxonicum (Rchb.) Knowlt. (= C. concentrica) (Göppert in Palaeontographica 12: 251. 1864; Seward, Foss. Pl. 3: 253. 1917; Dijkstra, l.c. 1971, l.c. 1972). However, the basionym of D. saxonicum, Megadendron saxonicum Rchb. (in Univers. Natur 5: 6. 23–29 Oct 1836), was published later than C. concentrica Cotta, requiring the new combination Dadoxylon concentricum (Cotta) Doweld, comb. nov. (≡ Calamitea concentrica Cotta, Dendrolithen: 71–72, t. 16, fig. 2–5. 1832) on grounds of priority. Brongniart (l.c.) was also very concerned about the similarity between the names Calamites and Calamitea, what is now known as parahomonymy or similarity of names likely to be confused: “la trop grande analogie des mots Calamites et Calamitea m’ont engagé à modifier un peu ce dernier nom”. To prevent confusion between the two genera in his new taxonomic system of classification, a new generic name was published. Needless to say in Brongniart’s time there were no special rules for parahomonymy in botanical nomenclature (Art. 53.3–5), but, perhaps, even today we could agree with Brongniart on the possible confusion of the two names that was his justification for the renaming of Calamitea to Calamodendron. New observations of Röβler & Noll (l.c.) on Calamitea contribute very important data for further study of this enigmatic fossil group, but need not disturb the traditional use of Calamodendron for these fossils. Therefore, it is suggested the name Calamodendron Brongn. be conserved against its earlier taxonomic synonym, Calamitea Cotta. In addition, a special historical-bibliographic study was conducted in order to determine exact publication dates for these old generic names supplemental to the information provided in Taxonomic Literature II. The book by Cotta (l.c.) has been registered as just published in the weekly bibliographical record of all newly published books in former German states, Bibliographie von Deutschland oder Wöchentliches Verzeichnis aller in Deutschland herauskommenden neuen Bücher, Musikalien und Kunstsachen (Leipzig), no. 5, p. 35 (# 298), 10 Mar 1832, the range of dates reflecting the interval between the issuance of consecutive weekly numbers (3–10 Mar 1832). The precise date has also been found for Brongniart’s influential treatment of fossil plants that appeared in d’Orbigny’s Dictionnaire universel d’histoire naturelle; this is derived from the date of national bibliographical registration in the weekly Bibliographie de la France 38: 329. 7 Jul 1849 (week for 30 Jun–7 Jul); a separate reprint of Brongniart’s Tableau des genres de végétaux fossiles was issued later as is confirmed by its later bibliographic registration in the weekly Bibliographie de la France 38: 462. 15 Sep 1849 (week for 8–15 Sep), and hence the citation of Brongniart’s taxonomic novelties should be correctly done only from the earlier published Dictionnaire, not from the separate. Acknowledgements It is a pleasure to thank bibliographers of the State Library of Prussian Heritage, Old Books Division, Berlin (Sabine Tolksdorf and Jutta Schöffel), for establishing exact dates of bibliographic registration of B. Cotta’s work in 1832. Special thanks go to Valentina Bublik (Fundamental Botanical Library of the National Institute of Carpology, Moscow) for bibliographic assistance. The research is a contribution to the Palaeoflora Europaea Project and Palaeoflora of Russia (Palaeoflora Rossica) Project (NOM-10-383).
Version of Record (identical to print version).
1341
