| Intro | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Taxon match | | Homonyms | | Statistics | | Webservice | | Manual | | FAQ | | LifeWatch | | Download | | Log in |
IRMNG taxon detailsClathropteris A.T. Brongniart, 1828 †
Meniscites Sternberg, 1827 † · unaccepted (nomen rejiciendum)
fossil only
Not documented
Taxonomic remark Recommended as nom cons. vs. Meniscites Sternberg, 1827, a validly published but previously overlooked name, refer...
Taxonomic remark Recommended as nom cons. vs. Meniscites Sternberg, 1827, a validly published but previously overlooked name, refer Herendeen, 2021; from that work: Clathropteris was nomenclaturally superfluous when published because it included the type of the previously and validly published monotypic generic name Meniscites ... The Committee was convinced by the proposal that the name Clathropteris is in widespread use whereas Meniscites is completely neglected, and therefore the Committee voted with a 94% majority to support the proposal. [details]
IRMNG (2023). Clathropteris A.T. Brongniart, 1828 †. Accessed at: https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1116607 on 2024-11-05
Date action by
basis of record
Farr, E. R.; Zijlstra, G. (eds). (1996-current). Index Nominum Genericorum (ING). A compilation of generic names published for organisms covered by the ICN: International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants. [previously: organisms covered by the International Code for Botanical Nomenclature] (2007 version). , available online at https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/ing/ [details]
additional source Doweld, A. B. (2018). (2604) Proposal to conserve the name Clathropteris against Meniscites (fossil Pteridophyta: Matoniopsida). <em>Taxon.</em> 67(2): 453-453., available online at https://doi.org/10.12705/672.26 [details] additional source Zhang, J.; Lenz, O. K.; Wang, P.; Hornung, J. (2021). The Eco-Plant model and its implication on Mesozoic dispersed sporomorphs for Bryophytes, Pteridophytes, and Gymnosperms. <em>Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology.</em> 293: 104503., available online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2021.104503 [details] verified source for family Novikoff, A.; Barabasz-Krasny, B. (2015). System of Embryophytes. In: Novikoff A., Barabasz-Krasny B. Modern Plant Systematics: 23-63. Liga-Pres, Lviv, Ukraine. , available online at https://phytomorphology.org/personal-information/system-of-embryophytes/ [details] name verified source Farr, E. R.; Zijlstra, G. (eds). (1996-current). Index Nominum Genericorum (ING). A compilation of generic names published for organisms covered by the ICN: International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants. [previously: organisms covered by the International Code for Botanical Nomenclature] (2007 version). , available online at https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/ing/ [details] current name source Herendeen, P. S. (2021). Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fossils: 14. <em>Taxon.</em> 70(3): 670-673., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12520 note: recommended as nom. cons. (vs. Meniscites Sternberg, 1827) [details] extant flag source Farr, E. R.; Zijlstra, G. (eds). (1996-current). Index Nominum Genericorum (ING). A compilation of generic names published for organisms covered by the ICN: International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants. [previously: organisms covered by the International Code for Botanical Nomenclature] (2007 version). , available online at https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/ing/ [details] habitat flag source as per family [details] Unreviewed
Descriptive info Foliage; Lower Jurassic; Scania, Sweden. (Index Nominum Genericorum) [details]Taxonomic remark Recommended as nom cons. vs. Meniscites Sternberg, 1827, a validly published but previously overlooked name, refer Herendeen, 2021; from that work: Clathropteris was nomenclaturally superfluous when published because it included the type of the previously and validly published monotypic generic name Meniscites ... The Committee was convinced by the proposal that the name Clathropteris is in widespread use whereas Meniscites is completely neglected, and therefore the Committee voted with a 94% majority to support the proposal. [details] |
