| Intro | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Taxon match | | Homonyms | | Statistics | | Webservice | | Manual | | FAQ | | LifeWatch | | Download | | Log in |
IRMNG name detailsPoacites Schlotheim ex Ballenstedt, 1822 †
fossil only
Not documented
Taxonomic remark From Cleal & Thomas, 2018: This generic name was first used by Schlotheim (1820) for fossils he interpreted as being of...
Taxonomic remark From Cleal & Thomas, 2018: This generic name was first used by Schlotheim (1820) for fossils he interpreted as being of grass-like leaves but this is invalid as it pre-dated the starting point for taxonomic nomenclature of fossil plants (ICN, Art. 13.1) as well as lacking a generic diagnosis (ICN, Art. 39.1). However, a review of Schlotheim’s (1820) work by Ballenstedt (1821) mentioned one of the species, “Poacites zeaeformis” Schlotheim, accompanied by a brief description ... Since this review only mentioned this one species under the generic name Poacites, this species diagnosis may also be used for the genus (ICN, Art. 38.5), thereby validating the publication of the generic name in this review. Nevertheless, the name is in practice unusable as the syntypes (as illustrated in Schlotheim 1820: pl. 26, figs 1, 2) show different types of fossils and the diagnosis is effectively meaningless in identifying a species. [details]
IRMNG (2022). Poacites Schlotheim ex Ballenstedt, 1822 †. Accessed at: https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11923239 on 2024-06-02
Date action by
basis of record
Cleal, C. J.; Thomas, B. A. (2018). Nomenclatural status of the palaeobotanical "artificial taxa" established in Brongniart's 1822 “Classification” paper. <em>Fossil Imprint.</em> 74(1-2): 9-28., available online at https://doi.org/10.2478/if-2018-0001 [details]
name verified source Cleal, C. J.; Thomas, B. A. (2018). Nomenclatural status of the palaeobotanical "artificial taxa" established in Brongniart's 1822 “Classification” paper. <em>Fossil Imprint.</em> 74(1-2): 9-28., available online at https://doi.org/10.2478/if-2018-0001 [details] current name source Cleal, C. J.; Thomas, B. A. (2018). Nomenclatural status of the palaeobotanical "artificial taxa" established in Brongniart's 1822 “Classification” paper. <em>Fossil Imprint.</em> 74(1-2): 9-28., available online at https://doi.org/10.2478/if-2018-0001 [details] extant flag source Cleal, C. J.; Thomas, B. A. (2018). Nomenclatural status of the palaeobotanical "artificial taxa" established in Brongniart's 1822 “Classification” paper. <em>Fossil Imprint.</em> 74(1-2): 9-28., available online at https://doi.org/10.2478/if-2018-0001 [details] habitat flag source Cleal, C. J.; Thomas, B. A. (2018). Nomenclatural status of the palaeobotanical "artificial taxa" established in Brongniart's 1822 “Classification” paper. <em>Fossil Imprint.</em> 74(1-2): 9-28., available online at https://doi.org/10.2478/if-2018-0001 [details] From other sources
Taxonomic remark From Cleal & Thomas, 2018: This generic name was first used by Schlotheim (1820) for fossils he interpreted as being of grass-like leaves but this is invalid as it pre-dated the starting point for taxonomic nomenclature of fossil plants (ICN, Art. 13.1) as well as lacking a generic diagnosis (ICN, Art. 39.1). However, a review of Schlotheim’s (1820) work by Ballenstedt (1821) mentioned one of the species, “Poacites zeaeformis” Schlotheim, accompanied by a brief description ... Since this review only mentioned this one species under the generic name Poacites, this species diagnosis may also be used for the genus (ICN, Art. 38.5), thereby validating the publication of the generic name in this review. Nevertheless, the name is in practice unusable as the syntypes (as illustrated in Schlotheim 1820: pl. 26, figs 1, 2) show different types of fossils and the diagnosis is effectively meaningless in identifying a species. [details]
|
