| Intro | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Taxon match | | Homonyms | | Statistics | | Webservice | | Manual | | FAQ | | LifeWatch | | Download | | Log in |
IRMNG name detailsArchaeoxylon Kräusel, 1924 †
fossil only
Not documented
Taxonomic remark From Philippe & Wilde, 2020: The ING considers this genus as validly published. There is, however, no real diagnosis, only...
Taxonomic remark From Philippe & Wilde, 2020: The ING considers this genus as validly published. There is, however, no real diagnosis, only a mere descriptio generica specifica. The features that distinguish this species and genus from any other fossil wood genus are not listed and the figures do not show any distinctive features. ... A thin schistose and bituminous layer was discovered within a level supposed to be Precambrian in age. This layer included the woody remains that Kräusel described as Archaeoxylon, as well as fragments of a ginkgoalean cuticle (Kräusel 1924b). It is probable that the bituminous layer was forced into its present-day position from a younger (Mesozoic?) level by faulting, or more simply, that these plant remains are just contamination from overlying Cenomanian strata. ... This genus has no diagnosis using distinctive secondary xylem features and no type material. It is not justified to propose a neotype. Thus, it is better that it not be used. Furthermore, Archaeoxylon krasseri cannot be used to infer the occurrence of Tracheophytes in the Precambrian due to the probable erroneous age. [details]
IRMNG (2022). Archaeoxylon Kräusel, 1924 †. Accessed at: https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1385495 on 2024-10-09
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]
status source Philippe, M.; Wilde, V. (2020). Kräusel's eight genera for fossil softwoods: types, nomenclature, and taxonomy. <em>IAWA Journal.</em> 42(1): 81-91., available online at https://doi.org/10.1163/22941932-bja10039 note: "it is better that it not be used", refer note [details] verified source for family Philippe, M.; Wilde, V. (2020). Kräusel's eight genera for fossil softwoods: types, nomenclature, and taxonomy. <em>IAWA Journal.</em> 42(1): 81-91., available online at https://doi.org/10.1163/22941932-bja10039 [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] Unverified
Descriptive info Fragment of pteridophyte? stem showing cells with bordered pits; Pre-Cambrian?; north of Prague, Czech Republic. (Index Nominum Genericorum) [details]Taxonomic remark From Philippe & Wilde, 2020: The ING considers this genus as validly published. There is, however, no real diagnosis, only a mere descriptio generica specifica. The features that distinguish this species and genus from any other fossil wood genus are not listed and the figures do not show any distinctive features. ... A thin schistose and bituminous layer was discovered within a level supposed to be Precambrian in age. This layer included the woody remains that Kräusel described as Archaeoxylon, as well as fragments of a ginkgoalean cuticle (Kräusel 1924b). It is probable that the bituminous layer was forced into its present-day position from a younger (Mesozoic?) level by faulting, or more simply, that these plant remains are just contamination from overlying Cenomanian strata. ... This genus has no diagnosis using distinctive secondary xylem features and no type material. It is not justified to propose a neotype. Thus, it is better that it not be used. Furthermore, Archaeoxylon krasseri cannot be used to infer the occurrence of Tracheophytes in the Precambrian due to the probable erroneous age. [details] |
