| Intro | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Taxon match | | Homonyms | | Statistics | | Webservice | | Manual | | FAQ | | LifeWatch | | Download | | Log in |
IRMNG name detailsOtopteris Lindley & W. Hutton, 1834 †
1313091 (urn:lsid:irmng.org:taxname:1313091)
unaccepted > unavailable name (nomen rejiciendum)
Genus
fossil only
Not documented
Taxonomic remark From Herendeen, 2021: The genus Otozamites Braun was introduced in 1843 and included Zamites bucklandii and six other...
Taxonomic remark From Herendeen, 2021: The genus Otozamites Braun was introduced in 1843 and included Zamites bucklandii and six other species. In 1849 Brongniart united Otozamites and Otopteris Lindl. & Hutton, which was published in 1834. Brongniart retained the later name Otozamites because he treated the genus as a cycad, not as a fern. Authors who thought the genus was a fern used the name Otopteris. By the end of the 19th century a consensus was established that the genus was a cycadophyte and thus the name Otozamites was used and Otopteris was abandoned. ... The Committee ... agreed that Otozamites is an important and widely known name and that conservation was justified and voted unanimously to support the proposal. [details]
IRMNG (2022). Otopteris Lindley & W. Hutton, 1834 †. Accessed at: https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1313091 on 2025-01-30
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 Zijlstra, G.; Konijnenburg‐van Cittert, J. H. (2019). (2710) Proposal to conserve the name Otozamites (fossil Cycadophyta : Bennettitales ) against Otopteris. <em>Taxon.</em> 68(4): 874-875., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12112 [details] source of synonymy 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 [details] status 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 [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] 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; Jurassic (Lias); England. (Index Nominum Genericorum) [details]Taxonomic remark From Herendeen, 2021: The genus Otozamites Braun was introduced in 1843 and included Zamites bucklandii and six other species. In 1849 Brongniart united Otozamites and Otopteris Lindl. & Hutton, which was published in 1834. Brongniart retained the later name Otozamites because he treated the genus as a cycad, not as a fern. Authors who thought the genus was a fern used the name Otopteris. By the end of the 19th century a consensus was established that the genus was a cycadophyte and thus the name Otozamites was used and Otopteris was abandoned. ... The Committee ... agreed that Otozamites is an important and widely known name and that conservation was justified and voted unanimously to support the proposal. [details] |
