Doweld • (2251) Conserve Pitys
TAXON 62 (6) • December 2013: 1349–1350
(2251) Proposal to conserve Pitys, nom. cons., against Pinites (fossil Gymnospermae: Lyginopteridopsida) 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/10.12705/626.36 (2251) (=)
Pitys Witham, Internal Struct. Foss. Veg.: 71. 13 Jul 1833 (‘Pitus’), nom. & orth. cons., nom. cons. prop. Typus: P. antiqua Witham. Pinites Lindl. & Hutton, Foss. Fl. Gr. Brit. 1: 74. 7 Jan 1832, nom. rej. prop. Typus: P. withamii Lindl. & Hutton (‘withami ’)
“Pinites” appeared in the first part of the Fossil Flora of Great Britain ([1]–14; t. 1–3. 1 Jul 1831) with the descriptions and illustrations of three new species, “P. brandlingi ”, “P. withami ” and “P. medullaris”, but Lindley and Hutton failed to provide the necessary distinct generic diagnosis, and hence both generic and species names were not validly published at that time. The generic name was validated later with a brief differential diagnosis included in a discussion comparing it with their new genus Peuce (“instead of the finely reticulated structure of the walls of the cells of Pinites Withami, and which are peculiar to the genus Pinites, …” (Lindley & Hutton, l.c.: 74. 7 Jan 1832 [date of exact publication was established from the date when part 3 of the Flora was presented by Lindley to the Geological Society of London (Trans. Geol. Soc., ser. 2, 3: 17. 1835)]). In that third part of volume 1 of the Flora (l.c.: 74. 1832) (for details of the publication, in parts, of the Flora, see Chaloner, in Stearn, John Lindley,
1799–1865: 160–174. 1999) the only species mentioned was Pinites withamii Lindl. & Hutton (‘withami ’) which was thereby validated by reference (“Craigleith Fossil (Pinites Withami, tab. 2)”) to its figure in the preceding issue of the book (l.c.: [9], t. 2, 1 Jul 1831), and hence must represent the type of Pinites. These validations have been overlooked by numerous researchers, including Andrews (in Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. 1013: 212. 1955) in the influential compilation, Index of Generic Names of Fossil Plants. Andrews thought that the generic name Pinites was validated later with a description by Witham (l.c.), and might be typified by Pinites brandlingii Lindl. & Hutton ex Witham (‘brandlingi ’). In fact Lindley & Hutton did not mention or treat further this species in their Flora after its initial mention until the validation of the name with a detailed description by Witham (l.c.: 73. 13 Jul 1833 [precise date of publication was established from the list of newly published books in The London Literary Gazette, no. 860, 13 Jul 1833 (list of new books), p. 446]). Despite this, typification of Pinites with P. brandlingii erroneously entered widely into numerous systematic treatises and as such is simultaneously considered incorrectly as a type of the junior fossil wood morphogenus Dadoxylon Endl. (Syn. Conif.: 298. 7–10 Jul 1847) (Penhallow in Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, ser. 2, 6(4): 55. 1900; Lepekhina & Yatsenko-Khmelevsky in Taxon 15: 68. 1966;
Version of Record (identical to print version).
1349
Doweld • (2252) Conserve Vojnovskyaceae
TAXON 62 (6) • December 2013: 1350–1351
Lepekhina in Palaeontographica, Abt. B, Paläophytol. 138: 57–58. 1972). Dadoxylon in such an incorrect circumscription (i.e. including type of previously validly published genus Pinites) is in current use and is therefore proposed for conservation (Doweld in Taxon 62: 1347. 2013) to maintain the established custom to use namely this generic name for distinctive Palaeozoic type of fossil wood. However, Pinites with its correct place of publication and type, Pinites withamii Lindl. & Hutton, is a senior heterotypic synonym of Pitys Witham, nom. & orth. cons. (‘Pitus’, see Doweld & Reveal in Taxon 51: 583–584. 2002). The genus Pitys is one of the corner stones of modern Carboniferous systematic palaeobotany (Scott in Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 40: 354. 1902; Long in Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 65: 211. 1963 & 70: 111. 1979; Galtier in Beck, Orig. Evol. Gymnosp.: 156. 1988). In the past, the generic name even served as the base for a distinct family, order and subclass of extinct pteridospermous plants, viz. Pityaceae D.H. Scott (Stud. Foss. Pl., ed. 2, 2: 500, 514, 517, 651. 1909 (‘Pityeae’)), Pityales Koidzumi (in Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 4: 237. 1935 (‘Pitysiales’)) and Pityidae Němejc ex Novák (Vyšš. Rostl.: 119. 1961). The generic name should not easily disappear from systematic palaeobotany for purely nomenclatural reasons. This would greatly destabilize the palaeobotanical nomenclature in current use. In contrast, Pinites is now an obsolete name being not recorded in compilation Fossilium Catalogus Plantae as currently used by palaeobotanists (vide Van Amerom in Dijkstra & Van Amerom, Foss. Cat. Pl. 103: 463. 2001), although it was originally used only for wood (Lindley & Hutton, l.c. 1832; Witham, l.c.), then for wood and foliage shoots and cones (Göppert in Nov. Actorum Acad. Caes. Leop.-Carol. Nat. Cur. 19(2): 376. 1842) or for
1350
foliage-shoots and strobili only (Endlicher, l.c.), but has not been used since the late of 19th century when several new distict generic names for fossil wood (i.e. Agathoxylon Hartig, Dadoxylon Endl., Palaeoxylon Brongn., Cordaioxylon Grand’Eury, Piceoxylon Gothan, Pinuxylon Gothan, etc.) and for reproductive organs (Cedrostrobus Stopes, Pinostrobus Feistm. ex Stopes, Pityostrobus C.P. Dutt, etc.) were established in systematic palaeobotany (Vogellehner in Taxon 13: 233–237. 1964). In order to stabilize nomenclature in current use and to legitimise the use of Pitys, which is widely employed in modern literature for a common element of the extinct tropical floras of Carboniferous Laurussia (Seward, Foss. Pl. 3: 289. 1917 & Pl. Life: 201. 1931; Gordon in Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 58: 279. 1935; Arnold in Boureau, Traité Paléobot. 4(1): 444. 1970; Long, l.c. 1963 & 1979; Meyen, Fundam. Palaeobot. 167. 1987; Galtier, l.c.; Taylor & al., Paleobotany, ed. 2: 551. 2009), rather than to transfer its species into the ambiguous and obsolete Pinites on the grounds of priority, it is formally proposed to conserve Pitys Witham against Pinites Lindl. & Hutton. Acknowledgements Thanks go to the librarians, Sheila Meredith and Wendy Cawthorne, of the Geological Society of London for providing archive records for the exact date of receipt of the parts of Lindley and Hutton’s Flora. It is a pleasure to thank Valentina Bublik (Fundamental Botanical Library of the National Institute of Carpology, Moscow) for the bibliographic assistance. The research is a contribution to the Palaeoflora Europaea Project.
Version of Record (identical to print version).
