Table Of Content

Validation of Some Suprageneric Names in Podocarpopsida Alexander B. Doweld National Institute of Carpology (Gaertnerian Institution), P.0. Box 72, RUS-119517, Moscow, Russian Federation, [email protected] James L. Reveal Professor Emeritus, University of Maryland. College Park, Maryland 20742-5815, U.S.A. Mailing address: 18625 Spring Canyon Road, Montrose, Colorado 81401-7906, U.S.A. [email protected] Abstract. Upon learning that the genus Pheros- posed Microstrobos J. Garden & L. A. S. Johnson. phaera W. Archer his (1850) was a synonym of the They also published Microstrobos niphophilus J. monospecific Tasmanian genus Microcachrys Hook¬ Garden & L. A. S. Johnson as a new species for er f. (1845), the family name Microcaehrydaceae what had mistakenly been called P. hookeriana for Doweld & Reveal (1999) was proposed for conser¬ nearly a century. When Nakai proposed his family vation giving it priority over Pherosphaeraceae Na- name in 1938. he circumscribed the taxon to in¬ kai (1938). The long-used name Pherosphaeraceae clude only what is now known as Microstrobos. was consistently misapplied in the sense of Micros- In 1953, two proposals (Elliott, 1953; Barber. trobos J. Garden & L. A. S. Johnson (1951). Ac¬ 1953) were published to conserve Pherosphaera J. cordingly, a new family, Microstrobaceae, is vali¬ I). 11 ooker (1857) over Pherosphaera W. Archer bis dated and segregated into its own order, (1850). Later, Florin (1956), aware of the typifica- Microstrobales. In addition, for those who might tion problem, placed Microstrobos in synonymy un¬ wish to recognize the taxon at a lower rank within der Pherosphaera J. D. Hooker and proposed Pher¬ Podocarpaceae Endlicher, the names Microstroboi- osphaera niphophila (Garden & L. A. S. Johnson) deae and Microstrobeae are established to replace Florin (Stunners, 1957). In 1958, the Committee for the already existing but consistently misapplied Spermatophyta rejected conservation of the later Pherosphaeroideae Pilger (1903, 1916) and Pher- homonym and proclaimed Microstrobos to be the osphaereae Pilger (1903). correct name for what had long been known as Key words: Microcachryaceae, Microcachrys, Pherosphaera (Rickett, 1958). Even so, Pheros¬ Microstrobaceae, Microstrobales, Microstrobeae, phaera sensu J. D. Hooker continued to be used Microstroboideae, Microstrobos, Pherosphaera, (e.g., Gaussen, 1974; Willis, 1973; Vi ielgorskaya. Pherosphaeraceae, Pherosphaereae, Pherosphaero¬ 1995; Melikyan & Bobrov, 2000). ideae. Reveal and Doweld (2001) have proposed con¬ servation of Microcaehrydaceae so that the correct In 1999, while validating and proposing several family name for the only genus in the taxon, Mi¬ new suprageneric names in Pinophyta Cronquist, crocachrys, would be Microcaehrydaceae rather Takhtajan & Zimmermann, we proposed Micro¬ than Pherosphaeraceae. Nonetheless, we recognize caehrydaceae Doweld & Reveal for the rare, mono- the necessity of establishing a family for Microstro- specific Tasmanian genus Microcachrys .). D. Hook¬ bos, and thus propose Microstrobaceae. It is note¬ er (1845). At that time we were not aware that worthy that recently Melikyan and Bobrov (2000) Pherosphaera W. Archer bis (1850) was a synonym used Pherosphaeraceae for this taxon, being un¬ of Microcachrys and that Pherosphaeraceae Nakai aware, like us, that Pherosphaera was a synonym (1938) was the correct name for our new family. of Microcachrys (which they placed in Microcach- The nomenclatural confusion began in 1857 rydaceae). In addition, these authors proposed a when Joseph Dalton Hooker misapplied Archer’s new order “Microstrobales” Bobrov & Melikyan; name to plants of a different genus. In this sense, however. Article 16.1 of the Code (Greuter et al., Pherosphaera was used until 1951. Aware that the 2000) requires that all typified ordinal names be type of P. hookeriana W. Archer bis was based on based on a validly published family name. the female reproductive structures of Microcachrys By establishing Microstrobaceae and validating tetragona J. I). Hooker, Garden and Johnson pro¬ Microstrobales following the classification scheme Novon 11: 395-397. 2001. 396 Novon proposed by Melikyan and Bobrov (2000), we hope Ab ordinibus Podocarpalibus Saxegothaealibusque epi- lo remove all references to the long-confused use matiis null is differt. of the generic name Pherosphaera for Microstrobos. An order differing from the Podocarpales and the However, we are fully aware that others consider Saxegothaeales in lacking an epimatium. Microstrobos to be a taxon within Podocarpaceae Endlicher (Conran et al., 2000; Hart, 1987; Kelch, Microstroboideae Doweld & Reveal, subfam. nov. 1997, 1998), and therefore validate both Microstro- TYPE: Microstrobos J. Garden & l„ A. S. John¬ boideae and Microstrobeae. We knowingly—as per¬ son, Contr. New S. Wales Nat. Herb. I: 316. mitted by the last sentence in Article 34.1 of the 1951. Microstrobaceae Doweld & Reveal, No¬ Code (Greuter et al., 2000)—take this action firstly von I 1: 396. 2001. to correct the misapplication of Pherosphaera for Microstrobos at the ranks of subfamily and tribe as Arbores sempervirentes, dioicae; strobili masculi ses¬ siles solitarii, terminales; strobili feminei terminales, so¬ suggested by Pilger (1903, 1916), and secondly to litarii sessiles, bracteae imbricatae, acuminatae; semen er- provide the necessary nomenclature in Podocarpa¬ ectum, unicum, epimatium nullum. ceae or whatever other family one might wish to use for these taxa. Evergreen dioecious shrubs; male cones sessile, It is essential to emphasize that judging by the solitary, terminal; female cones terminal, solitary, original Pilger (1903) and Nakai (1938) descrip¬ sessile, bracts imbricate, acuminate; seed erect, one, epimatium lacking. tions, the names Pherosphaeraceae, Pherosphaero- ideae, and Pherosphaereae were established for plants recognized now as belonging to the genus Microstrobeae Doweld & Reveal, trib. nov. Microstrobos ( = Pherosphaera J. I). Hooker, 1857, TYPE: Microstrobos J. Garden & L. A. S. John¬ non W. Archer bis, 1850). We hope that Micro- son, Contr. New S. Wales Nat. Herb. 1: 316. cachrydaceae will be conserved over Pherosphaer¬ 1951. M icrostrobaceae Doweld & Reveal. No¬ aceae but acknowledge that these changes will von 11: 396. 2001. cause some confusion for researchers consulting the Arbores sempervirentes, dioicae; folia acicularia, im- older literature. By correcting the names according bricata, in 4—5 lineas (nunquam decussata vel opposita) to the Code (conservation of Pherosphaera Hooker disposita; strobili terminales, sessiles, solitarii; semen un¬ f. over W. Archer bis was rejected in 1958!), we icum, erectum, epimatium nullum; numerus chromoso- matum haploideus n = 13. hope our modifications will promote nomenclatural stability in the future. Evergreen dioecious shrubs; leaves scale-like, imbricate, arranged in 4—5 rows but never decus¬ Mit (cid:9632)rostrobaceae Doweld & Reveal, fam. nov. sate or opposite; cones terminal, sessile, solitary; TYPE: Microstrobos J. Garden & L. A. S. John¬ seed one, erect, epimatium lacking; n = 13. son. Contr. New S. Wales Nat. Herb. 1: 316. Acknowledgments. We are grateful to K. N. 1951. Gandhi at Harvard University Herbaria who pro¬ vided us with some of the literature for this paper, Arbores sempervirentes, dioicae; folia acicularia, im- bricata, in 4—5 lineas (nunquam decussata vel opposita) and to a reviewer who provided additional clarifi¬ disposita; strobili masculi sessiles solitarii, grana pollinis cations and suggestions. This research is a contri¬ 3-saccata; strobili feminei solitarii sessiles, ovoidei, in ag- bution to the Systema Spermatophytorum Project of gregationes 2—8, bracteae imbricatae. acuminatae; semen the National Institute of Carpology (Gaertnerian In¬ unicum, epimatium nullum. stitution), Moscow. This study is part of the Index Evergreen dioecious shrubs; leaves scale-like, Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum Project imbricate, arranged in 4—5 rows but never decus¬ from the Norton-Brown Herbarium (MARY) and sate or opposite; male cones sessile, solitary, pollen presented with the cooperation of the International with 3 air sacs; female cones solitary, sessile, ovoid, Association for Plant Taxonomy and the National in aggregations of 2—8, bracts imbricate, acuminate; Agricultural Library, Beltsville, Maryland. seed 1. epimatium lacking. Literature Cited ]Ylier<>strol>ales Melikyan & Bobrov ex Doweld & Archer, W. 1850. Note on Microcachrys, Hook. fib. and on Reveal, ord. nov. TYPE: Microstrobos J. Gar¬ a new allied genus of Coniferae of Van Diemen’s Land. Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Card. Misc. 2: 51—52. den & L. A. S. Johnson, Contr. New S. Wales Barber, H. N. 1953. Propositions pour le Congres de Paris, Nat. Herb. 1: 316. 1951. Microstrobaceae nos. 28—32. Taxon 2: 214. Doweld & Reveal, Novon 11: 396. 2001. Conran, ,|. G., G. G. Wood, P. G. Martin, J. M. Dowd. C. Volume 11, Number 4 Doweld & Reveal 397 2001 Names in Podocarpopsida J. Quinn, P. A. Gadek & R. A. Price. 2000. Generic Kelch, D. G. 1997. The phylogeny of the Podocarpaceae relationships within and between die gymnosperm fam¬ based on morphological evidence. Syst. Bot. 22: 113— ilies Podocarpaceae and Phyllocladaceae based on an 131. analysis of the chloroplast gene rbcL. Austral. J. Bot. -. 1998. Phylogeny of Podocarpaceae: Comparison 45: 715-724. of evidence from morphology and 18S rl)NA. Amer. J. Doweld, A. B. & J. L. Reveal. 1999. Validation of new Bot. 85: 986-996. suprageneric names in Pinophyta. Phytologia 84: 363— Melikyan. A. P. & A. V. Bobrov. 2000. Morphology of 367. female reproductive structures anti an attempt of the Elliott, G. G. 1953. Proposal no. 32. Proposal to conserve construction of phylogenetic system of orders Podocar- the genus Pherosphaera sensu Hooker. Taxon 2: 141. pales, Cephalotaxales, and Taxales. Bot. Zhurn. (Mos¬ Florin, R. 1956. Nomenclatural notes on genera of living cow & Leningrad) 85(7): 50-67. gymnosperms. Taxon 5: 188—192. Nakai, T. 1938. Indigenous species of conifers anti taxads Garden, J. & L. A. S. Johnson. 1951. Microstrobos, a new of Korea and Manchuria, and their distribution. Tyosen- name for a podocarpaceous genus Contr. New S. Wales Sanrin 158: 1-15. Nat. Herb. I: 315-316. Pilger, R. 1903. Taxaceae. Pflanzenr. IV, 5(Heft 18): 1— Gaussen, 11. 1974. Les Gymnosperms actuelles et fossiles. 124. Fascicule XIII. Fes Podocarpines sauf les Podocarpus. -. 1916. Krilische Ubersicht iiber die neuere Lit- Trav. Lab. Forest. Toulouse 2(1) fasc. XIII: 1 — 174. eratur betreffend die Familie tier Taxaceae. Bot. Jahrb. Greuter, W., J. McNeill. F. R. Rarrie, H. M. Burdet, V. Syst. 54: 1-43. Demoulin, T. S. Filgueiras. D. H. Nicolson, P. C. Silva, Reveal, J. L. & A. B. Doweld. 2001. A proposal to con¬ J. F. Skog, P. Trehane, N. J. Turland & I). L. Hawk- serve the family name Microcaehrydaceae (Pinophyta). swortb. 2000. International Code of Botanical Nomen¬ Taxon 50. clature (Saint Louis Code). Regnum Veg. 138. Rickett, If. W. 1958. Report of the Committee for Sper- Hart, J. A. 1987. A cladistic analysis of conifers: Prelim¬ matophyta. Conservation of generic names 1. Taxon 7: inary results. J. Arnold Arbor. 68: 269—307. 184—193 [Pherosphaera: 186]. Hooker, J. I). 1845. On the Huon Pine, and on Micro- Shinners, L. H. 1957. Against conservation of Xantho- cachrys, a new genus of Coniferae from Tasmania; to¬ phyllum and Pherosphaera. Taxon 6: 135—137. gether with remarks upon the geographical distribution Wielgorskaya, T. 1995. Dictionary of Generic Names of of that order in the Southern Hemisphere. London J. Seed Plants. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. Bot. 4: 137-157. Willis, J. C. 1973. A Dictionary of the Flowering Plants -. 1857. Coniferae. Bot. Antarct. Voy. 3 [FI. Tas¬ and Ferns, revised by H. K. Airy Shaw, 8th ed. Cam¬ man.]: 349-359. bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.