Premium
MÖGLICHKEITEN EINER REGELGEMÄSSEN STABILISIERUNG DER NOMENKLATUR KARBONISCHER PFLANZEN III
Author(s) -
Vogellehner Dieter
Publication year - 1968
Publication title -
taxon
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.819
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1996-8175
pISSN - 0040-0262
DOI - 10.2307/1217705
Subject(s) - nomenclature , specific name , species name , correct name , synonym (taxonomy) , type (biology) , confusion , type species , international code of zoological nomenclature , nomen nudum , citation , genealogy , zoology , biology , philosophy , genus , botany , history , taxonomy (biology) , ecology , library science , computer science , psychology , psychoanalysis
Summary The following proposals for stabilization of the nomenclature of Carboniferous plants are made: (1) Conservation of the generic name Sigillaria Brongniart (1822), taxonomic synonym of Rhytidolepis Sternberg (1822), and Euphorbites Martius (1822). (2) Citation of the generic name Sigillariostrobus as follows: Sigillariostrobus Schimper (1870) ex Feistmantel (1871). Type‐species: S. goldenbergii Feistmantel (1876) ex Zeiller (1884). The nomenclature of Sigilhriostrobus is very confused. If the rules are strictly applied, the name Sigilhriostrobus Schimper (1870) is not validly published (unitary designation). Valid publication dates from 1871 (Feistmantel) or 1873 (Geinitz). The type‐species of these authors, S. cordai and S. bifidus , must be transferred to other genera ( Sporangiostrobus, Gomphostrobus ). The name Sigillariostrobus used by subsequent authors (e.g. Grand'Eury, Zeiller) for species such as S. goldenbergii is, therefore, illegitimate. The species S. goldenbergii proposed as new type‐species is described by Schimper (1870) but not designated as “species” (Feistmantel 1876: nomen provisorium, Zeiller 1884: valid publication). Nevertheless, the citation of S. goldenbergii as type‐species seems to be the most reasonable solution of this problem. It would also be possible to reinstate the name Sigillariostrobus for Sporangiostrobus or Gomphostrobus. The species described by most subsequent authors under Sigillariostrobus must then be renamed. This solution, however, is not acceptable because it throws “science into confusion” (Code, Preamble).