| Intro | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Taxon match | | Homonyms | | Statistics | | Webservice | | Manual | | FAQ | | LifeWatch | | Download | | Log in |
IRMNG taxon detailsNeuropteris (A.T. Brongniart) Sternberg, 1825 †
fossil only
Not documented
Taxonomic remark Basionym: Filicites sect. Neuropteris A.T. Brongniart, 1822. (nom. & orth. cons.). Cleal & Thomas, 2018 list Neuropteris...
Taxonomic remark Basionym: Filicites sect. Neuropteris A.T. Brongniart, 1822. (nom. & orth. cons.). Cleal & Thomas, 2018 list Neuropteris (Brongniart) Sternberg, 1825 as a "nom. rej.", but this appears to be an error. Also from the same work: The problems surrounding the type of this name have been discussed by Laveine and Blanc (1996) and Laveine (1998) with the result that since the St Louis ICBN (Greuter et al. 2000) it has been conserved with the specimen figured by Brongniart (1831: pl. 71) as type rather than that figured in the protologue of the basionym. The spelling used by Sternberg (1825) was also conserved against that used by Brongniart (1822a). ... The name is now mostly used for Palaeozoic medullosalean foliage (Cycadopsida) with basally constricted pinnules and non-anastomosed veining. Such fossils have been extensively recorded and studied, with the result that Brongniart’s original fossil-genus has now been segregated into a series of more tightly circumscribed genera based initially on frond architecture (Gothan 1941) and then later incorporating data on epidermal anatomy (Cleal et al. 1990, Cleal and Shute 1995). As pointed out by Cleal and Shute (1995) there remain a few species that are morphologically well circumscribed but for which frond architecture or cuticles are insufficiently known for them to be placed in this more refined classification. These tend to be retained within Neuropteris but with no implication being made that they are related to the type of that fossil-genus (N. heterophylla). The name is usually used for adpression fossils, although it can also be used for anatomically-preserved fossils if sufficient morphological characters are available, such as from paradermal sections (e.g. Beeler 1983). However, if only anatomical data are available, Neuropteris is difficult to distinguish from other types of medullosalean frond (e.g. Alethopteris Sternberg, 1825) and so the more widely circumscribed fossil-genus defined exclusively on anatomical characters (Myeloxylon Brongniart, 1849) is best used. [details]
IRMNG (2023). Neuropteris (A.T. Brongniart) Sternberg, 1825 †. Accessed at: https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1353071 on 2025-01-27
Date action by
basis of record
SN2000 unverified [details]
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 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 note: listed as nom. rej. (?in error) [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 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] extant flag source SN2000 unverified [details] habitat flag source as per family [details] Unreviewed
Descriptive info Upper Carboniferous; Charleroi, Belgium. (Index Nominum Genericorum) [details]Taxonomic remark Basionym: Filicites sect. Neuropteris A.T. Brongniart, 1822. (nom. & orth. cons.). Cleal & Thomas, 2018 list Neuropteris (Brongniart) Sternberg, 1825 as a "nom. rej.", but this appears to be an error. Also from the same work: The problems surrounding the type of this name have been discussed by Laveine and Blanc (1996) and Laveine (1998) with the result that since the St Louis ICBN (Greuter et al. 2000) it has been conserved with the specimen figured by Brongniart (1831: pl. 71) as type rather than that figured in the protologue of the basionym. The spelling used by Sternberg (1825) was also conserved against that used by Brongniart (1822a). ... The name is now mostly used for Palaeozoic medullosalean foliage (Cycadopsida) with basally constricted pinnules and non-anastomosed veining. Such fossils have been extensively recorded and studied, with the result that Brongniart’s original fossil-genus has now been segregated into a series of more tightly circumscribed genera based initially on frond architecture (Gothan 1941) and then later incorporating data on epidermal anatomy (Cleal et al. 1990, Cleal and Shute 1995). As pointed out by Cleal and Shute (1995) there remain a few species that are morphologically well circumscribed but for which frond architecture or cuticles are insufficiently known for them to be placed in this more refined classification. These tend to be retained within Neuropteris but with no implication being made that they are related to the type of that fossil-genus (N. heterophylla). The name is usually used for adpression fossils, although it can also be used for anatomically-preserved fossils if sufficient morphological characters are available, such as from paradermal sections (e.g. Beeler 1983). However, if only anatomical data are available, Neuropteris is difficult to distinguish from other types of medullosalean frond (e.g. Alethopteris Sternberg, 1825) and so the more widely circumscribed fossil-genus defined exclusively on anatomical characters (Myeloxylon Brongniart, 1849) is best used. [details] |
