| Intro | | Search taxa | | Taxon tree | | Search literature | | Taxon match | | Homonyms | | Statistics | | Webservice | | Manual | | FAQ | | LifeWatch | | Download | | Log in |
IRMNG name detailsUllmannites J. Tuzson, 1906 †
1076472 (urn:lsid:irmng.org:taxname:1076472)
unaccepted > unavailable name (nomen rejiciendum)
Genus
fossil only
Not documented
Taxonomic remark Eristophyton M.D. Zalessky 1911 has the same 1955 lectotype. (Index Nominum Genericorum). From Herendeen, 2021: It is now...
Taxonomic remark Eristophyton M.D. Zalessky 1911 has the same 1955 lectotype. (Index Nominum Genericorum). From Herendeen, 2021: It is now known that Eristophyton is predated by Ullmannites Tuzson, which was established in 1906 for the same two wood species, plus two additional species. Until recently it was thought that both generic names, Eristophyton and Ullmannites, were validly published in 1911. Seward was aware of the synonymy of these names in 1919 and he rejected the use of Ullmannites in favor of Eristophyton. ... Conservation of Eristophyton ex D.H. Scott will allow continued use of this widely used name. The Committee agreed with the arguments presented in the proposal and voted unanimously to support conservation. [details]
IRMNG (2022). Ullmannites J. Tuzson, 1906 †. Accessed at: https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1076472 on 2024-04-24
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/
note: publication year changed 1911 -> 1906, refer note [details] additional source Doweld, A. B. (2019). (2685) Proposal to conserve the name Eristophyton against Ullmannites (fossil Spermatophyta, Pityales). <em>Taxon.</em> 68(2): 413-414., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12047 [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] From other sources
Descriptive info Wood; Permian; Falkenberg, Silesia. (Index Nominum Genericorum) [details]Taxonomic remark Eristophyton M.D. Zalessky 1911 has the same 1955 lectotype. (Index Nominum Genericorum). From Herendeen, 2021: It is now known that Eristophyton is predated by Ullmannites Tuzson, which was established in 1906 for the same two wood species, plus two additional species. Until recently it was thought that both generic names, Eristophyton and Ullmannites, were validly published in 1911. Seward was aware of the synonymy of these names in 1919 and he rejected the use of Ullmannites in favor of Eristophyton. ... Conservation of Eristophyton ex D.H. Scott will allow continued use of this widely used name. The Committee agreed with the arguments presented in the proposal and voted unanimously to support conservation. [details] |
