Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fossils: 18

Patrick S. Herendeen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13185

2024-05-07

Taxon

Abstract:Summary The following one species name is recommended for conservation: Iris latifolia (Mill.) Voss against I. latifolia Heer. The following one family name is recommended for conservation: Callistophytaceae against Emplectopteridaceae (Pteridospermopsida).

plant sciences,evolutionary biology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fossils: 17

Patrick S. Herendeen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13142

2024-02-08

Taxon

Abstract:Summary The following four generic names are recommended for conservation: Dipterocarpoxylon with a conserved type against Hippocrateoxylon, Dryobalanoxylon against Naucleoxylon, Shoreoxylon against Bredaea and Grewioxylon, and Myrtophyllum Heer (fossil Angiosperms) with a conserved type against Myrtophyllum Turcz. The following one species name is recommended for conservation: Quercus pacifica Nixon & C.H. Mull. against Q. pacifica Knowlt.

plant sciences,evolutionary biology
Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Bryophytes: 15

Niels Klazenga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13135

2024-01-27

Taxon

Abstract:Summary The following four names of bryophytes are recommended for conservation: Cololejeunea against Metzgeriopsis, Colurolejeunea tenuicornis against Lejeunea ceratophora, Dicranaceae, and Rhabdoweisiaceae. Furthermore, the name Aphanolejeunea angustissima is recommended for rejection.

plant sciences,evolutionary biology
Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 75

Wendy L. Applequist

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13134

2024-01-27

Taxon

Abstract:Summary Rejection of the subfamily name Crassulaceae subfam. Cotyledonoideae is not recommended. Conservation of the following 10 generic names is recommended: Ampelopsis with conserved type, Aria vs. Chamaemespilus and Torminalis, Bituminaria with conserved type, Dennstaedtia with conserved type, Klukia Racib. vs. Klukia Andrz. ex Besser, Osmelia vs. Stachycrater, Pycnarrhena vs. Antitaxis, Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke vs. Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck, Triraphis with conserved type, and Vella with conserved type. The following two generic names are not recommended for conservation: Lycaste vs. Anguloa and Xylobium and Mitrella vs. Pyramidanthe. The generic name Pacoseroca is recommended for rejection. The following 33 species names are recommended for conservation: Acalypha multicaulis vs. A. pruriens and A. ruderalis, Anethum segetum with conserved type, Bromus retusus vs. B. plukenetii, Cacao sylvestris with conserved type, Citrus reticulata with conserved type, Clerodendrum umbellatum with conserved type, Cycas riedlei Fisch. ex Gaudich. vs. C. riedlei Dum. Cours., Dendrobium officinale vs. D. catenatum, Dicksonia bipinnata with conserved type, Engelhardia roxburghiana with conserved type, Iris latifolia (Mill.) Voss vs. I. latifolia Heer, Isoetes sahyadrii with conserved type, Juncus acuminatus Michx. vs. J. acuminatus Balb., Kalanchoe rosei vs. K. bouvieri, Larrea nitida vs. Mimosa balsamica, Lilium humboldtii vs. L. puberulum, Loasa rudis vs. L. rhoeadifolia, Magnolia oblonga (Wall. ex Hook. f. & Thomson) Figlar vs. M. oblonga M. Chandler, Malus domestica vs. M. sylvestris, Myagrum paniculatum with conserved type, Oxalis eckloniana C. Presl vs. O. eckloniana F. Dietr. and O. bifolia, Phyllanthus claussenii with conserved type and vs. P. udicola, Phyllanthus flagelliformis vs. P. eurisladro, Phyllanthus klotzschianus vs. P. robustus, Prunus maackii vs. P. glandulifolia, Quercus frainetto vs. Q. conferta, Quercus pacifica Nixon & C.H. Mull. vs. Q. pacifica Knowlt., Ranunculus trichophyllus vs. R. peucedanifolius, Rubus ulmifolius vs. R. creticus, R. vulgaris, and R. inermis, Sida albida with conserved type, Solanum nitidibaccatum vs. S. stylesianum and Bosleria nevadensis, Thymus microphyllus with conserved type, and Valeriana scouleri with conserved type. The following five species names are not recommended for conservation: Aspidium devexum vs. A. membranaceum, Croton fuscescens vs. C. gnaphaloides, Daphniphyllum oldhamii vs. D. pentandrum, Rhododendron myrtifolium Schott & Kotschy vs. R. ×myrtifolium G. Lodd. ex Bosse, and Teucrium microphyllum vs. T. quadratulum. A proposal to conserve Echinocactus williamsii vs. E. williamsianus is noted to be unnecessary. The following 17 species names are recommended for rejection: Bryophyllum triangulare, Callitriche foliosa, Callitriche spuria, Commelina nimmoniana, Cuscuta aggregata, Dendrobium brownii, Eriostemon trinervis, Genista multicaulis, Grewia oppositifolia, Kalanchoe aleurodes, Marcgravia jacquinii, Narcissus flavus, Pereskia glomerata, Salsola coquimbana, Taxodium huegelii, Tulipa urumiensis, and Ulostoma filamentosum. The species name Thymus marschallianus is not recommended for rejection. It is recommended that the names Parisia and Parrisia not be treated as homonyms. The Committee recommends against making a binding decision on whether Silene dicolor and Silene discolor should be treated as homonyms, since they clearly should not be. It is recommended that Aethionema kopetdaghi be treated as validly published and that Anthurium ×macrolobum be treated as validly published by W. Bull ex T. Moore & Mast. (or Anon.). The Committee recommends against making a binding decision regarding the adequacy of the descriptive statement of Rhododendron humicola.

plant sciences,evolutionary biology
Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi: 23

Tom W. May

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13133

2024-01-27

Taxon

Abstract:Summary Five lists of names for protection assembled by working groups set up under Art. F.2.1 are approved. The lists contain one family name along with 39 names of genera and 10 names of species, to be treated as protected against listed and unlisted synonymous or homonymous names. Lists were compiled by working groups (WGs) approved by the International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi and the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi: on Homobasidiomycetes, Heterobasidiomycetes, Orbiliomycetes, Sordariomycetes (excluding Diaporthales, Hypocreales and Magnaporthales) and Miscellaneous fungi. The list from the Pyricularia/Magnaporthe WG did not require any formal action. Acceptance of two proposals to conserve names under Art. 14.1 associated with two of the names (Typhula, Typhulaceae) originally included in the list for protection from the Homobasidiomycetes WG led to the removal of those two names from consideration for protection. The names Drechslerella and Dactylellina, initially included in the list from the Orbiliomycetes WG, were withdrawn from that list. In relation to two proposals under Art 14.1 that are connected to the list from the Dothideomycetes WG, the following family name is not recommended for conservation: Pleomassariaceae against Prosthemiaceae; and the following generic name is not recommended for conservation: Pleomassaria against Prosthemium. As a result of consideration of the set of proposals that contained the two proposals connected to Typhulaceae, the following family name is recommended for conservation: Phyllotopsidaceae against Sclerotiaceae; the following two names of genera are recommended for conservation: Macrotyphula against Sclerotium, and Typhula with a conserved type; and the following species name is recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Sclerotium fulvum. A modified proposal resulted in a recommendation to conserve the name Peziza medicaginis against Sporonema phacidioides. The generic name Discosphaera Haeckel (Algae) is recommended for conservation against Discosphaera Dumort. (Fungi). Two individual proposals under Art. 14.1 are listed as having been withdrawn.

plant sciences,evolutionary biology
Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi: 24

Tom W. May

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13148

2024-03-02

Taxon

Abstract:Summary An addition to the list of names for protection under Art. F.2.1 from the Cordyceps Working Group, containing two names of genera, is approved. The following two family names are recommended for conservation: Physaraceae against Fuliginaceae; and Metschnikowiaceae against Nectaromycetaceae and Torulopsidaceae. The following six generic names are recommended for conservation: Blastomyces Gilchrist & W.R. Stokes against Blastomyces Costantin & Rolland; Cercospora with a conserved type; Didymium against Mucilago and Spumaria; Discula with a conserved type; Metschnikowia against Torulopsis; and Phyllopsora against Triclinum and Crocynia. The proposal concerning the gender of the genus Glomus is referred to the General Committee. The following 15 species names are recommended for conservation: Agaricus cingulatus (Tricholoma cingulatum) against A. ramentaceus; A. psammopus (Tricholoma psammopus) against A. concolor; Apioporthe corni (Aurantioporthe corni, Cryptodiaporthe corni) against Sphaeronaema aurantiacum and Myxosporium nitidum; Ditiola mucida (Holwaya mucida) against Acrospermum caliciiforme (Crinula caliciiformis); Entoloma sericeum against Agaricus pascuus (E. pascuum); Geoglossum uliginosum Hakelier against G. uliginosum (Pers.) P. Crouan & H. Crouan; Microsphaera alphitoides (Erysiphe alphitoides) with a conserved type; Peziza cinnamomea (Pezicula cinnamomea) against Naemaspora grisea; Phyllosticta yuccae against Leptodothiorella notabilis; Puccinia psidii (Austropuccinia psidii) against Caeoma eugeniarum and Uredo neurophila; Tolypocladium inflatum against Cordyceps subsessilis; Tricholoma sciodes against Agaricus hordus; Tuber aestivum Vittad. against T. aestivum (Wulfen) Spreng. and T. blotii; T. magnatum against T. griseum; and T. melanosporum against T. nigrum. The following two species names are recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Ramularia gibba and Tuber cibarium. Proposal 2307 (concerning Hypocrea lutea (Tode) Petch) is no longer relevant, following the removal in the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) of Art. 57.2 of the Melbourne Code (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012). Proposal 2233 (to conserve Bipolaris against Cochliobolus) and four proposals concerning names in Trichoderma and Hypocrea (2305, 2306, 2308 and 2309) have been withdrawn because the names were included in a list for protection from an approved working group: for Bipolaris, the Dothideomycetes Working Group, and for Trichoderma, the International Subcommission on Trichoderma and Hypocrea. Three works by Paulet, the unpaginated "Index" of Traité des champignons and two editions of Tabula plantarum fungosarum, are recommended for suppression under Art. 34.

plant sciences,evolutionary biology
Chrysanthemum dabieshanense, a new name for Chrysanthemum vestitum var. latifolium (Asteraceae, Anthemideae)

Zhixi Fu,Xiaofeng Liu,Aiguo Zhen,Xinxin Zhu,Kamil Konowalik,Yueping Ma,Pan Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.202.80554

2022-01-01

PhytoKeys

Abstract:Recent phylogenetic analyses have revealed that Chrysanthemum vestitum var. latifolium and C. vestitum var. vestitum were placed in different clades based on their chloroplast genomes and nuclear LFAFY gene sequences. Accordingly, based on previous morphological analysis, molecular phylogenetic results, fieldwork, and herbarium studies, Chrysanthemum vestitum var. latifolium should be raised to the species level. Considering the condition of the material found and Articles 6.9, 6.11, 41.2, 58.1 of the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (Shenzhen Code) that is currently in force, Chrysanthemum dabieshanense Z.X.Fu, A.G.Zhen, & Y.P.Ma, nom. nov. is proposed as the new name for Chrysanthemum vestitum var. latifolium J.Zhou & Jun Y.Chen. The detailed emended description, distribution map, insights into its habitat, and an updated comparative morphological study are presented in this study.
Report of the General Committee: 30

Karen L. Wilson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13178

2024-05-01

Taxon

Abstract:Summary Decisions of the General Committee are reported on proposals and requests in Report 25 of the Nomenclature Committee (NC) for Algae, Reports 22 and 23 of the NC for Fungi, Report 15 of the NC for Bryophytes and Report 17 of the NC for Fossils. Report 23 of the NC for Fungi also included five lists of protected fungal names for formal approval.

plant sciences,evolutionary biology
The nomenclature of the amphi-Atlantic mangrove oysters

Philippe Bouchet,Serge Gofas,Daniele Salvi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2024.02.004

IF: 1.581

2024-02-26

Zoologischer Anzeiger

Abstract:An article published last year in this journal (Ferreira et al., 2023) advocated the use of the name Crassostrea gasar (Dillwyn, 1817) for an amphi-Atlantic mangrove oyster. We challenge this terminology, which is not supported by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and defend the status quo accepting the name Crassostrea tulipa (Lamarck, 1819).

zoology
Global phylogenetic and morphological reassessment of Fomitiporella s.l. (Hymenochaetales, Basidiomycota): taxonomic delimitation of Fomitiporella s.s. and segregation of Rajchenbergia, gen. nov.

Carlos A. Salvador-Montoya,Orlando F. Popoff,Aristóteles Góes-Neto,Elisandro R. Drechsler-Santos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-020-01648-w

2020-03-09

Plant Systematics and Evolution

Abstract:Fomitiporella has been phylogenetically studied in order to taxonomically treat it more naturally. In order to establish Fomitiporella s.s., studies on the holotype of F. umbrinella (the type species of Fomitiporella), and new specimens from the type locality, were carried out. Additionally, the holotype of Fuscoporella coruscans (the type species of Fuscoporella) was studied. A new morphological conceptual delimitation of Fomitiporella s.s. is presented, with a more restricted distribution pattern, and Fuscoporella is chosen as a synonym of Fomitiporella. Moreover, Rajchenbergia, gen. nov. is segregated from Fomitiporella s.l. based on morphology, phylogenetic relationships and host distribution. Taxonomic implications for the group and other related taxa are discussed. Fomitiporella americana is synonymized with F. umbrinella, F. micropora with Fomitiporella coruscans, comb. nov., and F. melleopora is now in Tropicoporus melleoporus, comb. nov., based on type and reference material studies.

plant sciences,evolutionary biology
Further cleaning of the name pool in the New World Commelina (Commelinaceae), and notes on the African C. aquatica

GUSTAVO HASSEMER

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.435.2.2

2020-03-09

Phytotaxa

Abstract:Study of the Commelina names published for the Americas and their original materials, in the context of a continental taxonomic revision of the genus, evidenced the need for typifications and synonymisations. In this work, 18 names are lectotypified (Athyrocarpus pseudomonosperma, C. aquatica, C. bravoa, C. diffusa var. cordispatha, C. dubia Redouté nom. illeg., C. erecta f. intercursa, C. formosa, C. glabra, C. nervosa, C. pallida, C. pallida var. parviflora, C. pilosula, C. quitensis var. mandonii, C. stricta, C. undulata Lodd. nom. illeg., C. virginica var. massonii, Nephralles parviflora and Phaeosphaerion efoveolaltum), one name neotypified (C. polygama), one name epitypified (C. longicaulis) and eight new synonymisations proposed. Evidence is presented that the African species C. aquatica, which is morphologically similar to the American C. longicaulis but has a different chromosome number, is most probably not conspecific with C. diffusa. Furthermore, the situation of seven Commelina names currently recognised in some sources, which however were never validly published, is discussed.

plant sciences
Phylogenetic-based nomenclatural proposals for Ophiocordycipitaceae (Hypocreales) with new combinations in Tolypocladium

C. Alisha Quandt,Ryan M. Kepler,Walter Gams,João P. M. Araújo,Sayaka Ban,Harry C. Evans,David Hughes,Richard Humber,Nigel Hywel-Jones,Zengzhi Li,J. Jennifer Luangsa-ard,Stephen A. Rehner,Tatiana Sanjuan,Hiroki Sato,Bhushan Shrestha,Gi-Ho Sung,Yi-Jian Yao,Rasoul Zare,Joseph W. Spatafora

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2014.05.01.12

2014-06-01

IMA Fungus

Abstract:Ophiocordycipitaceae is a diverse family comprising ecologically, economically, medicinally, and culturally important fungi. The family was recognized due to the polyphyly of the genus Cordyceps and the broad diversity of the mostly arthropod-pathogenic lineages of Hypocreales. The other two cordyceps-like families, Cordycipitaceae and Clavicipitaceae, will be revised taxonomically elsewhere. Historically, many species were placed in Cordyceps, but other genera have been described in this family as well, including several based on anamorphic features. Currently there are 24 generic names in use across both asexual and sexual life stages for species of Ophiocordycipitaceae. To reflect changes in Art. 59 in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), we propose to protect and to suppress names within Ophiocordycipitaceae, and to present taxonomic revisions in the genus Tolypocladium, based on rigorous and extensively sampled molecular phylogenetic analyses. When approaching this task, we considered the principles of priority, monophyly, minimizing taxonomic revisions, and the practical utility of these fungi within the wider biological research community.

mycology
The Taxonomic Status of Genera within the Fabeae (Vicieae), with a Special Focus on Pisum

T. H. Noel Ellis,Petr Smýkal,Nigel Maxted,Clarice J. Coyne,Claire Domoney,Judith Burstin,Yanis Bouchenak-Khelladi,Noam Chayut

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/d16070365

2024-06-26

Diversity

Abstract:The taxonomy of the tribe Fabeae (Vicieae) has long been problematic, but an analysis by Schaefer et al. in 2012 gave an exceptionally clear view of the tribe and noted the possibility that some nomenclatural adjustments may be required at some future date. These authors suggested several options, expressing some preferences. However, there has been a recent change to formally accepted names, implementing one of these possibilities, but without any additional relevant information. This change seems unjustified and unhelpful. We therefore present an argument for the retention, or re-instatement, of the genera Pisum, Vavilovia, and Lens until such time as new data support this requirement and there is no nomenclatural solution that is both accurate and convenient.

ecology,biodiversity conservation
Correcting sponge names: nomenclatural update of lower taxa level Porifera

Rob W M VAN Soest,ROB W.M. VAN SOEST

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5398.1.1

IF: 0.9

2024-01-09

Zootaxa

Abstract:The online World Porifera Database (WPD), the Porifera part of the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS), lists virtually all published scientific names of sponges. The names of the WPD (as indeed all names in WoRMS) are guided by the Code of the International Comnission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). The WPD names include all currently accepted as well as original combinations, and a majority of non-accepted non-original combinations. Currently, among the accepted names about 200 original lower taxa combinations were found to be accepted by default, usually varieties or formae, which were given that status in the WPD because there was no sufficient published information to support arguments for or against the accepted status. After 1961, varieties and formae are considered infrasubspecific taxa whose names are not regulated by the Code and the names are unavailable, but prior to that date these trinominal taxa are potential available names. It is the purpose of the present study to evaluate these original default ‘accepted’ combinations and arrive at an argumented judgement on whether they are to be truly accepted or non-accepted. Furthermore, additional lower taxa name violations of the Code are also included. Overall, there are three categories of names of lower taxa treated here, (1) with combinations, which are judged to be accepted with elevated status as (sub)specific taxa, (2) with combinations judged to be junior synonyms, and (3) with combinations, which are violating articles of the Code. Among the last category there are a small number of varietal taxa described after the 1960 cut-off date, which are unavailable but are proposed to have the original name combination retained, but as new names with authorship and year changed to those of the present article. Also, names found to be unavailable for various reasons (four-name combinations, junior homonyms, phylocode names) are in this category. The following 31 new names are proposed (three of which are junior synonyms of senior accepted names, and an additional three are unavailable names made available by employing the same name combination with the present authorship and year): Aaptos hoshinoi nom.nov., Ancorina nanosclera nom.nov., Axinella kurushima nom.nov., Callyspongia (Cladochalina) desqueyrouxfaundezae nom.nov., Cliona carpenteri subsp. hentscheli nom.nov., Callyspongia (Toxochalina) gustavoi nom.nov., Craniella microspira nom.nov., Dictyaulus romani nom.nov., Grantia breitfussi nom.nov., Haliclona alba subsp. albapontica nom.nov., Haliclona aquaeductus subsp. sebastopolensis nom.nov., Haliclona inflata subsp. vladimiri nom.nov., Haliclona informis subsp. voldomaroi nom.nov., Haliclona palmata subsp. pontuseuxiniensis nom.nov., Haliclona (Gellius) arthuri nom.nov., Haliclona (Gellius) godthaabae nom.nov., Haliclona merguiensis nom.nov., Haliclona senjitanitai nom.nov., Iophon hentscheli nom.nov., Leucandra wilsoni nom.nov., Paraleucilla bassensis nom.nov. (= P. saccharata), Pione carpenteri subsp. hentscheli nom.nov., Psammocinia samaaii nom.nov., Protoschmidtia czerniavskyi nom.nov. (= Metschnikowia tuberculata), Reiswiginella nom.nov., Scalarispongia lamarcki nom.nov., Spheciospongia hentscheli nom.nov., Spongia (Spongia) vonlendenfeldi nom.nov. (= S. (S.) lignosa), Suberites austral nom.nov., Suberites dendyi nom.nov., Suberites simae nom.nov., and Timea levii nom.nov.

zoology
Case 3821– Helix spirorbis Deshayes, 1850 (currently Scolodonta spirorbis; Gastropoda, Eupulmonata): proposed conservation of the specific name

Rodrigo B. Salvador,Luiz R. L. Simone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v77.a041

2020-12-30

The Bulletin of zoological nomenclature

Abstract:The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name of Helix spirorbis Deshayes, 1859 (currently Scolodonta spirorbis), a junior primary homonym of Helix spirorbis Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Anisus spirorbis). These names are currently in use, respectively, for species in two different families of terrestrial (Scolodontidae) and freshwater (Planorbidae) gastropods, that belong to different superorders. Both names have been treated as valid since they were proposed and both were transferred out of the genus Helix Linnaeus, 1758 before 1899. In fact, H. spirorbis Linnaeus had been reassigned even before Deshayes described his species. It is proposed that Helix spirorbis Deshayes, 1859 be conserved by ruling it is not invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of Helix spirorbis Linnaeus, 1758.
A nomenclatural review of family-group names in the Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera: Ensifera)

MATTHEW G. CONNORS

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5468.1.1

IF: 0.9

2024-06-12

Zootaxa

Abstract:The Tettigoniidae is the largest and most complex family within the Orthoptera, and perhaps expectedly, its systematic arrangement is largely unsatisfactory. Recent phylogenetic studies within the group have been almost wholly at odds with traditional morphological classification, and it is clear that a great number of changes will be made to the family in the near future. To remove the element of nomenclatural uncertainty that will inevitably arise with such dramatic changes, I here provide a complete annotated list of all family-group names proposed within the Tettigoniidae in explicit order of priority. I provide details of the authorship, availability, current validity, current rank(s) and name(s), type genus, stem, and parent taxon of each of the 182 proposed family-group names, of which 171 represent available names. I also make several nomenclatural changes, the most significant of which is the replacement of available but informal groupings (e.g. species groups) with formal tribes, subtribes, and infratribes. Other major changes are the replacement of Nedubini syn. nov. with Apteropedetini stat. nov., the replacement of Eumegalodontina (unavailable name) with Lesinina stat. nov., and the designation of Acanthodidae as nomen oblitum with respect to Pleminiae ( nomen protectum ). To reduce confusion in future, I recommend that all new family-group names be clearly proposed as new, with a correct rank, stem, suffix, and diagnosis, that informal groupings are explicitly proposed as informal, and that formal names are used and proposed in place of informal names wherever possible. I additionally propose that the suffixes -iti and -ita be used for all supertribe and infratribe rankings within the Tettigoniidae. Finally, I discuss the various names that have been used for taxa between the ranks of family and subfamily, with the recommendation that informal 'group' and 'clade' names with unambiguous suffixes are formed from available subfamily names.

zoology
Case 3838 – Helix plicaria Lamarck, 1816 (currently Hemicycla plicaria; Gastropoda, Eupulmonata, Stylommatophora, Helicidae): proposed conservation of the specific name

Benedikt Wiggering,Matthias Glaubrecht,Marco T. Neiber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v78.a024

2021-08-30

The Bulletin of zoological nomenclature

Abstract:The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Helix plicaria Lamarck, 1816, a junior primary homonym of Helix plicaria Born, 1778. These names are currently in use for two different groups of land and freshwater snails, respectively, and have not been treated as congeneric since 1828. Helix plicaria Born, 1778 was first transferred to the genus Bulimus Scopoli, 1777 and subsequently to the genera Thiara Rding, 1798, Melania Lamarck, 1799, Melanoides Olivier, 1804 and Stenomelania Fischer, 1885. Helix plicaria Lamarck, 1816 has either been treated as belonging to Helix Linnaeus, 1758, Cochlea Da Costa, 1778 or has been included in Hemicycla Swainson, 1840. It is proposed that Helix plicaria Lamarck, 1816 be conserved by ruling it is not invalid by reason of being a junior homonym of Helix plicaria Born, 1778.
Nomenclatural Notes in the Ornithocephalus Clade (Oncidiinae: Orchidaceae)

Carla A. Royer,A. L. V. Toscano de Brito,Eric C. Smidt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1600/036364424x17151801116367

2024-07-24

Systematic Botany

Abstract:Abstract— Based on the recent phylogenetic study on Ornithocephalus clade, we propose ten new combinations to include the genus Eloyella in Dunstervillea .

plant sciences,evolutionary biology
Intricate Networks in Nomenclature: Cases of Naming in Arthrocaulon, Arthrocnemum, and Salicornia (Amaranthaceae)

Duilio Iamonico,Ib Friis,Mauro Iberite

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13131783

2024-06-28

Plants

Abstract:The nomenclatural status and typification of the names Arthrocaulon macrostachyum, Salicornia fruticosa, S. fruticosa var. deflexa, S. fruticosa var. glaucescens, S. fruticosa var. intermedia, S. fruticosa var. humilis, S. fruticosa var. pachystachya, S. fruticulosa, S. glauca, S. lignosa, S. macrostachya var. virescens, S. macrostachya var. glaucescens, S. perennis, S. radicans, S. radicans var. caespitosa, S. sarmentosa, S. sempervirens, and S. virginica, as well as an unnamed β-variety of S. fruticosa proposed by A. Bertoloni, are investigated. Concerning A. macrostachyum, we document that the type indicated in literature (G00177362) is not a holotype, and that lectotypification is necessary. A specimen from G (G00687638) is here designated as a lectotype. On the level of variety, Arthrocnemum fruticosum var. macrostachyum is an earlier legitimate name for Salicornia fruticosa var. pachystachya. Furthermore, Piirainen et al. are incorrect when citing Forsskål's "Salicornia" from Alexandria as "S. virginica Forssk."; it is not a new name and should be cited as S. virginica auct. non L., as published in Forsskål's Flora Aegyptiaco-Arabica. Like with numerous other parallel cases in Flora Aegyptiaco-Arabica, Forsskål's designation of "Salicornia virginica" for an Arabian plant is to be considered a misapplication of the earlier Linnaean name for an American plant. Arthrocnemum glaucum (a Ungern-Sternberg's nomen illegitimum), was listed as type species of Arthrocnemum by the Names in Current Use project; the basionym, Salicornia glauca Delile, is here lectotypified and identified as Arthrocaulon meridionale, published by Ramirez et al. Updated synonymies of Arthrocaulon macrostachyum, A. meridionale, Salicornia fruticosa, and S. perennis are proposed. Salicornia sempervirens is an invalid name according to Art. 36.1a of ICN. No original material was found for S. radicans var. caespitosa. This paper also refer to lecto- or neotypifications on specimens deposited at BM, G, LINN-HS, LY, MPU, NAP, and PAL, and their current taxonomic positions are suggested.in a taxonomic part of the paper.

plant sciences
Chrysanthemum Dabieshanense, a New Name for Chrysanthemum Vestitum Var. Latifolium (asteraceae, Anthemideae)

Zhixi Fu,Xiaofeng Liu,Aiguo Zhen,Xinxin Zhu,Kamil Konowalik,Yueping Ma,Pan Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15468/dkferv

2022-01-01

Abstract:This dataset contains the digitized treatments in Plazi based on the original journal article Fu, Zhixi, Liu, Xiaofeng, Zhen, Aiguo, Zhu, Xinxin, Konowalik, Kamil, Ma, Yueping, Li, Pan (2022): Chrysanthemum dabieshanense, a new name for Chrysanthemum vestitum var. latifolium (Asteraceae, Anthemideae). PhytoKeys 202: 45-52, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.202.80554, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.202.80554
The genus Fomitopsis (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) reconsidered

V. Spirin,K. Runnel,J. Vlasák,I. Viner,M.D. Barrett,L. Ryvarden,A. Bernicchia,B. Rivoire,A.M. Ainsworth,T. Grebenc,M. Cartabia,T. Niemelä,K.-H. Larsson,O. Miettinen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3114/sim.2024.107.03

2024-01-01

Studies in Mycology

Abstract:Based on seven- and three-gene datasets, we discuss four alternative approaches for a reclassification of Fomitopsidaceae ( Polyporales , Basidiomycota ). After taking into account morphological diversity in the family, we argue in favour of distinguishing three genera only, viz. Anthoporia , Antrodia and Fomitopsis . Fomitopsis becomes a large genus with 128 accepted species, containing almost all former Fomitopsis spp. and most species formerly placed in Antrodia , Daedalea and Laccocephalum . Genera Buglossoporus , Cartilosoma , Daedalea , Melanoporia , Neolentiporus , alongside twenty others, are treated as synonyms of Fomitopsis . This generic scheme allows for morphologically distinct genera in Fomitopsidaceae , unlike other schemes we considered. We provide arguments for retaining Fomitopsis and suppressing earlier ( Daedalea , Caloporus ) or simultaneously published generic names ( Piptoporus ) considered here as its synonyms. Taxonomy of nine species complexes in the genus is revised based on ITS, ITS + TEF1 , ITS + TEF1 + RPB1 and ITS + TEF1 + RPB2 datasets. In total, 17 species are described as new to science, 26 older species are reinstated and 26 currently accepted species names are relegated to synonymy. A condensed identification key for all accepted species in the genus is provided.

mycology

Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fossils: 18

Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fossils: 17

Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Bryophytes: 15

Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 75

Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi: 23

Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi: 24

<i>Chrysanthemum dabieshanense</i>, a new name for <i>Chrysanthemum vestitum</i> var. <i>latifolium</i> (Asteraceae, Anthemideae)

Report of the General Committee: 30

The nomenclature of the amphi-Atlantic mangrove oysters

Global phylogenetic and morphological reassessment of Fomitiporella s.l. (Hymenochaetales, Basidiomycota): taxonomic delimitation of Fomitiporella s.s. and segregation of Rajchenbergia, gen. nov.

Further cleaning of the name pool in the New World Commelina (Commelinaceae), and notes on the African C. aquatica

Phylogenetic-based nomenclatural proposals for Ophiocordycipitaceae (Hypocreales) with new combinations in Tolypocladium

The Taxonomic Status of Genera within the Fabeae (Vicieae), with a Special Focus on Pisum

Correcting sponge names: nomenclatural update of lower taxa level Porifera

Case 3821– Helix spirorbis Deshayes, 1850 (currently Scolodonta spirorbis; Gastropoda, Eupulmonata): proposed conservation of the specific name

A nomenclatural review of family-group names in the Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera: Ensifera)

Case 3838 – Helix plicaria Lamarck, 1816 (currently Hemicycla plicaria; Gastropoda, Eupulmonata, Stylommatophora, Helicidae): proposed conservation of the specific name

Nomenclatural Notes in the Ornithocephalus Clade (Oncidiinae: Orchidaceae)

Intricate Networks in Nomenclature: Cases of Naming in Arthrocaulon, Arthrocnemum, and Salicornia (Amaranthaceae)

Chrysanthemum Dabieshanense, a New Name for Chrysanthemum Vestitum Var. Latifolium (asteraceae, Anthemideae)

The genus Fomitopsis (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) reconsidered