| Intro | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Taxon match | | Homonyms | | Statistics | | Webservice | | Manual | | FAQ | | LifeWatch | | Download | | Log in |
IRMNG name detailsProtopinaceae Kräusel, 1949 †
fossil only
Not documented
Taxonomic remark Used in the past, also by recent authors, as a grouping for fossil wood, however an artificial grouping according to...
Taxonomic remark Used in the past, also by recent authors, as a grouping for fossil wood, however an artificial grouping according to Bamford et al., 2016, also not validly published since not based on a genus name (the genus name Protopinus was validly published later, by Bolchovitina ex T. Nilsson, 1958, and was intended for fossil conifer pollen, not wood). From Bamford et al., 2016: Despite being questioned for a long time, the Protopinaceae are still often mentioned, either as a taxon, or an “evolutionary stage”, or a vague unit. A review of the 21st century literature shows that some researchers regard it as an extinct basal branch of the Coniferales (Parrish and Falcon-Lang, 2007), while for others just as a fossil family like the Voltziaceae or the Corytospermaceae (Morel et al., 2003). For Blokhina and Afonin (2007) the “so-called Protopinaceae” may represent, at least partly, archaic Pinaceae ... Not being validly published this name is not to be considered for rejection (art. 56, ICBN). The Protopinaceae “family” is an artificial grouping. As such it does not deserve any botanical name sensu ICBN. ... the woods with Protopinaceae-like features should be assigned to other families when possible, or remain as incertae sedis. [details]
IRMNG (2022). Protopinaceae Kräusel, 1949 †. Accessed at: https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=105375 on 2024-11-23
Date action by
status source
Bamford, M. K.; Philippe, M.; Thévenard, F. (2016). Long overdue extinction of the Protopinaceae. <em>Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology.</em> 234: 25-30., available online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2016.06.006 [details]
extant flag source as per included genera [details] Unreviewed
Taxonomic remark Used in the past, also by recent authors, as a grouping for fossil wood, however an artificial grouping according to Bamford et al., 2016, also not validly published since not based on a genus name (the genus name Protopinus was validly published later, by Bolchovitina ex T. Nilsson, 1958, and was intended for fossil conifer pollen, not wood). From Bamford et al., 2016: Despite being questioned for a long time, the Protopinaceae are still often mentioned, either as a taxon, or an “evolutionary stage”, or a vague unit. A review of the 21st century literature shows that some researchers regard it as an extinct basal branch of the Coniferales (Parrish and Falcon-Lang, 2007), while for others just as a fossil family like the Voltziaceae or the Corytospermaceae (Morel et al., 2003). For Blokhina and Afonin (2007) the “so-called Protopinaceae” may represent, at least partly, archaic Pinaceae ... Not being validly published this name is not to be considered for rejection (art. 56, ICBN). The Protopinaceae “family” is an artificial grouping. As such it does not deserve any botanical name sensu ICBN. ... the woods with Protopinaceae-like features should be assigned to other families when possible, or remain as incertae sedis. [details]
|
