identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03D83378FFEA886EFF0EFBB4FD61F9FA.text	03D83378FFEA886EFF0EFBB4FD61F9FA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hostinella BARRANDE ex STUR 1881	<div><p>Hostinella BARRANDE ex STUR, 1881</p> <p>Silurian and Devonian fossil floras regularly yield fragments of slender, dichotomous axes that lack spines, leaves or attached sporangia, but determining their taxonomic affinities is virtually impossible. In stratigraphically younger fossil floras, such remains would normally be dismissed as merely unidentifiable plant debris and would not be named taxonomically. However, they play a more important role in understanding the development of the earliest terrestrial biotas and (following Høeg 1942, 1952) they are often placed in a separate fossil-genus (e.g., Edwards 1979, 1980, Prestianni et al. 2012). The problem is that the generic types are Middle Devonian stems that appear to be parts of early progymnosperm fructifications (Matten and Schweitzer 1982). Since none of Stur’s types can really be incorporated within the generic concept as envisioned by Høeg (1942), it is illegitimate to use the name Hostinella in this way.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D83378FFEA886EFF0EFBB4FD61F9FA	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Cleal, Christopher J.;Thomas, Barry A.	Cleal, Christopher J., Thomas, Barry A. (2021): Naming Of Parts: The Use Of Fossil-Taxa In Palaeobotany. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 166-186, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.013, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.013
03D83378FFEA8869FF0EF9FEFE7FFA72.text	03D83378FFEA8869FF0EF9FEFE7FFA72.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Psilophytites HOEG 1952	<div><p>Psilophytites HØEG, 1952</p> <p>Høeg (1952) created this fossil-genus to be similar to Hostinella as he had defined it, but for axes with “… spreading undivided spines.” Most of the specimens that Høeg listed as typifying the fossil-genus had either not been published with a species name or had been assigned (incorrectly, according to Høeg) to other, better-known species such as Psilophyton princeps DAWSON. However, one was the holotype of Psilophyton rectissimum HØEG (Høeg 1945), which consisted of a spiny axis lacking reproductive structures or anatomy, exactly as Høeg had defined Psilophytites. Since it is unlikely that reproductive structures or cell structure will ever be found for the P. rectissimum holotype, it is unlikely to be ever transferred to another, more natural taxon. It therefore makes complete sense also to designate the Høeg (1945) specimen the generic lectotype for Psilophytites, thereby effectively stabilising the name for the fossil-genus envisaged by Høeg (1952).</p> <p>Pecopteris (BRONG.) STERNB., 1825 (≡ Filicites (Pecopteris) BRONGN., 1822)</p> <p>Fern-like frond fragments with small dentate pinnules are common in many Carboniferous and Permian adpression floras. When evidence of reproductive structures has been available, they have been assigned to one of various fossilgenera (e.g., Acitheca SCHIMP., Cyathocarpus C.E.WEISS and Seftenbergia CORDA; Corda 1845, Weiss 1869, Schimper 1879) but for many species these structures are unknown (many such species can be found in the monographs by Corsin (1951) and Dalinval (1960)). Traditionally these fossils have been assigned to the fossil-genus Pecopteris, adopting the original diagnosis given by Brongniart (1822), but this overlooks the fact that the reproductive structures of the type of Pecopteris (P. penniformis) are well documented: they compare with the sori of the tedeleacean fern Senftenbergia (Bertrand 1912, Bek and Pšenička 2001, Frojdová et al. 2020).</p> <p>There are two potential solutions to this problem. The original Brongniart (1822) taxon could be retained (with the change of rank suggested by Sternberg 1825), and all fernlike fossil fronds with small, linguaeform to dentate pinnules assigned to Pecopteris, irrespective of affinities. This has the advantage of inclusivity, as no fossils of this type need be excluded, but has the disadvantage of lacking any taxonomic resolution. Since it is now accepted that at least two distinct orders of ferns (Marattiales and Filicales) have fronds with such dentate pinnules, and they even occur in some seedplants (e.g., Callistophytales ‒ e.g., Crookall 1930), such a lack of resolution would be clearly disadvantageous.</p> <p>It was for this reason that a more natural classification was developed that takes into account the reproductive structures (summarised by Cleal 2015). But what happens to the species for which the reproductive structures are unknown? It would be possible to create a new fossil-genus for the fossil-species for which reproductive structures are unknown. But for this to be a stable concept, the type would have to be chosen such that reproductive structures would be impossible or unlikely ever to be found – otherwise, as soon as those structures were discovered, the type would be excluded from the fossil-genus and a new name would need to be created. The only real solution is to make comparisons with the framework species of the classification (i.e., those for which sori/synangia are known) based on morphological features of the sterile pinnae, and named maybe using open nomenclature ‒ not a totally satisfactory solution but maybe the only practical one.</p> <p>Lepidostrobus variabilis LINDL. et HUTTON emend. by Chaloner (1953)</p> <p>Brongniart (1828b) named and briefly described as the holotype of Lepidostrobus a fossilised cone figured by Parkinson (1804). From then on, all cones that even vaguely fitted Brongniart’s morphological criteria were included in this genus. Sporophyll morphology later came to be regarded as the most important character for taxonomic purposes. Lepidostrobus was generally accepted to be a heterogenous group including both bisporangiate cones with megaspores and microspores, and microsporangiate cones with just microspores.</p> <p>However, it eventually became obvious that, wherever possible, the in-situ spores in the cones need to be thoroughly investigated for an accurate determination (Chaloner 1953, Felix 1954). The earlier taxonomic efforts emphasized the characteristics of the megaspores rather than those of the microspores. Although microspores from Lepidostrobus can be correlated with the genus Lycospora J.M.SCHOPF, L.R.WILSON et BENTALL (Schopf et al. 1944), it is often difficult to relate them to the dispersed spore species. Nevertheless, studies of in-situ spores have suggested that there are at least two groups of Lycospora: those with distinctive proximal ornamentation and broad equatorial flange occur within microsporangiate Lepidostrobus strobili, whilst those with smooth proximal surfaces lacking broad equatorial flanges occur within bisporangiate strobili (Thomas 1970 b, 1978, Thomas and Dytko l980). Since the type of Lepidostrobus contained microspores of the type found in microsporangiate cones, Brack-Hanes and Thomas (1983) redefined Lepidostrobus as a fossil-genus of microsporangiate strobili; bisporangiate cones formerly included in Lepidostrobus were transferred to Flemingites CARRUTH. (Carruthers 1865).</p> <p>So, what should the strobili that lack evidence of their spore content be called? They originally tended to be referred to as Lepidostrobus sp. but there was also a tendency to give them specific names based on morphological features. This could imply they were microsporangiate cones, which might not necessarily be correct and could be misleading. Chaloner (1953) suggested that the fossil-species Lepidostrobus variabilis as emended by Arber (1922) should be retained as a designation for such barren cones (the revision of this species by Sen (1958) should probably be rejected as having been based on contaminated samples ‒ Bek 2012). This seems to us as an admirable suggestion and would leave no doubt about it use when applied to figured cones or identifications in species lists.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D83378FFEA8869FF0EF9FEFE7FFA72	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Cleal, Christopher J.;Thomas, Barry A.	Cleal, Christopher J., Thomas, Barry A. (2021): Naming Of Parts: The Use Of Fossil-Taxa In Palaeobotany. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 166-186, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.013, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.013
03D83378FFED8869FFE5FA79FAC9F992.text	03D83378FFED8869FFE5FA79FAC9F992.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Taeniopteris BRONGN. 1828	<div><p>Taeniopteris BRONGN., 1828a</p> <p>Cycad-like fronds are common in Mesozoic fossil floras but it has been recognised since Thomas and Bancroft (1913) that they include both cycadalean and bennettitalean foliage, two groups of seed plants that are only distantly related. The two types of frond can be easily distinguished if cuticles are preserved but is less so in impressions. Some of these foliage genera are sufficiently distinctive morphologically that they can be separated without cuticles, and hence assigned to either the cycads or bennettites; the distinctive Otozamites BRAUN (Braun 1844) fronds, for instance, are generally regarded as bennettitalean (Harris 1969). Other genera are more problematic, however, not least the more or less entire leaves of the Taeniopteris / Nilssonia / Nilssoniopteris complex.</p> <p>The nomenclatural confusion surrounding the cycadalean Nilssonia BRONGN. (Brongniart 1825) and bennettitalean Nilssoniopteris NATH. (Nathors 1909) has been extensively discussed (Cleal and Rees 2003, Cleal et al. 2006, van Konijnenburg-van Cittert et al. 2017, Pott and van Konijnenburg-van Cittert 2017) and need not be repeated here. The lectotype of Taeniopteris as designated by Cleal and Rees (2003: 763) is a very similar shaped leaf but with no cuticle preserved. Since this fossil originated from the Middle Jurassic Stonesfield flora that hardly ever yields cuticles, it will almost certainly be impossible ever to place the Taeniopteris lectotype within the circumscription of either Nilssonia or Nilssoniopteris. To further clarify the situation, Cleal and Rees (2003: 762) emended the diagnosis of the genus containing the type of Taeniopteris so that it can only include species that have not yielded cuticles. By strictly following ICN, therefore, we have ended up with three fossil-genera of essentially similar-shaped entire or near-entire cycadophyte leaves: Nilssonia for those species attributable to the Cycadales, Nilssoniopteris for those attributable to the Bennettitales, and Taeniopteris for the less-well known species unattributable to either group.</p> <p>Androstrobus SCHIMPER, 1870 emend. by Glasspool et al. in Deng et al. (2014)</p> <p>Androstrobus has been widely used for adpressions of Mesozoic cycadalean pollen organs (e.g., Harris 1964, Watson and Cusack 2005). The genus was originally defined through relatively generalised morphological characters but van Konijnenburg-van Cittert (1971) refined the definition using cuticular and pollen characters, and a morphologically similar set of fossil cones was separated off into a second fossil-genus, Hastystrobus VAN KONIJNENB.</p> <p>However, Archangelsky and Villar de Seoane (2004) pointed out that the holotype of Androstrobus preserves neither cuticles nor pollen, so it is impossible to confirm if it in fact belongs to either Androstrobus sensu Konijnenburgvan Cittert (1971) or Hastystrobus. Consequently, Deng et al. (2014) proposed that Androstrobus sensu Konijnenburgvan Cittert (1971) should be placed in a new fossil-genus, Schimperostrobus GLASSPOOL, J.HILTON, S.H.DENG et DEJAX. Deng et al. (2014) also emended Androstrobus to include only cycad-like microstrobili of this type, but for which pollen or cuticles are unknown. As pointed out in Deng et al. (2014), this limits the use of Androstrobus in phylogenetic studies, but is a useful taxon for recording cones of this type in museum collections and geological studies.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D83378FFED8869FFE5FA79FAC9F992	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Cleal, Christopher J.;Thomas, Barry A.	Cleal, Christopher J., Thomas, Barry A. (2021): Naming Of Parts: The Use Of Fossil-Taxa In Palaeobotany. Fossil Imprint 77 (1): 166-186, DOI: 10.37520/fi.2021.013, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.37520/fi.2021.013
