Intro | Search taxa | Taxon tree | Search literature | Taxon match | Homonyms | Statistics | Webservice | Manual | FAQ | LifeWatch | Download | Log in

IRMNG taxon details

Cladophlebis A.T. Brongniart in A.C.V.D. d'Orbigny, 1849 †

1060560  (urn:lsid:irmng.org:taxname:1060560)

accepted
Genus

Ordering

  • Alphabetically
  • By status

Children Display

marine, brackish, fresh, terrestrial
fossil only
Not documented
Taxonomic remark Doweld, 2013 proposed to conserve Cladophlebis with a conserved type, C. denticulata (formerly Pecopteris denticulata); the...  
Taxonomic remark Doweld, 2013 proposed to conserve Cladophlebis with a conserved type, C. denticulata (formerly Pecopteris denticulata); the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils accepted that the generic name requires conservation but disagreed with Doweld's proposed choice of type, stating: This is a very complicated and confusing proposal with several unresolved questions that must be clarified before the committee can recommend acceptance of a conservation proposal. (For full detail refer Herendeen, 2016). [details]
IRMNG (2024). Cladophlebis A.T. Brongniart in A.C.V.D. d'Orbigny, 1849 †. Accessed at: https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1060560 on 2024-03-29
Date
action
by
2006-09-20 22:00:00Z
created
2012-02-16 23:00:00Z
changed
2018-05-15 10:51:34Z
changed

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 Bomfleur, B.; Grimm, G. W.; McLoughlin, S. (2017). The fossil Osmundales (Royal Ferns)—a phylogenetic network analysis, revised taxonomy, and evolutionary classification of anatomically preserved trunks and rhizomes. <em>PeerJ.</em> 5: e3433., available online at https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3433 [details]   

additional source Herendeen, P. S. (2016). Report of the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils: 10. <em>Taxon.</em> 65(2): 382-387., available online at https://doi.org/10.12705/652.18 [details]   

additional source Doweld, A. B. (2013). (2244–2245) Proposals to conserve the names Cladophlebis with a conserved type and Pecopteris denticulata (Cladophlebis denticulata) against P. ligata (fossil Pteridophyta: Osmundopsida). <em>Taxon.</em> 62(6): 1343-1345., available online at https://doi.org/10.12705/626.32
note: as nom. cons. prop., refer note [details]   

verified source for family Taylor, T. N.; Taylor, E. L.; Krings, M. (2009). Paleobotany: The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants. Second Edition. Academic Press, 1252 pp. , available online at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780123739728 [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 Taylor, T. N.; Taylor, E. L.; Krings, M. (2009). Paleobotany: The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants. Second Edition. Academic Press, 1252 pp. , available online at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780123739728 [details]   

extant flag source SN2000 unverified [details]   

habitat flag source as per family [details]   
From other sources
Descriptive info Foliage; Carboniferous-Jurassic; Europe. (Index Nominum Genericorum) [details]

Taxonomic remark Doweld, 2013 proposed to conserve Cladophlebis with a conserved type, C. denticulata (formerly Pecopteris denticulata); the Nomenclature Committee on Fossils accepted that the generic name requires conservation but disagreed with Doweld's proposed choice of type, stating: This is a very complicated and confusing proposal with several unresolved questions that must be clarified before the committee can recommend acceptance of a conservation proposal. (For full detail refer Herendeen, 2016). [details]

This service is powered by LifeWatch Belgium
Learn more»