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

IRMNG name details

Tetraphyllum Hosius & von der Marck, 1880 †

11922419  (urn:lsid:irmng.org:taxname:11922419)

uncertain (not used in recent literature; a nom. rej. prop. in botany (only))
Genus
terrestrial
fossil only
Not documented
Taxonomic remark Described as a fossil plant (under botanical Code) but now considered to be a trace fossil, refer Middleton et al., 2021....  
Taxonomic remark Described as a fossil plant (under botanical Code) but now considered to be a trace fossil, refer Middleton et al., 2021. Under the botanical Code it competes with the later name Tetraphyllum Griffith ex C.B. Clarke, 1883, which is proposed for conservation by Middleton et al., loc. cit., although it can be used as a valid name in zoology. According to these authors, Bertling, 2019 noted that Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck had neither been placed in synonymy nor further used in the literature since it was published. Index Nominum Genericorum (2022 version) lists Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck as "Not validly published: a provisional name", however Middleton et al. consider that it is validly published. [details]
IRMNG (2022). Tetraphyllum Hosius & von der Marck, 1880 †. Accessed at: https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11922419 on 2022-06-25
Date
action
by
2022-04-25 05:22:10Z
created

basis of record Middleton, D. J.; Bertling, M.; McNeill, J.; Möller, M. (2021). (2809) Proposal to conserve the name Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke (Gesneriaceae) against Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck (published as fossil Magnoliophyta). <em>Taxon.</em> 70(2): 437-438., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12484 [details]   

status source Middleton, D. J.; Bertling, M.; McNeill, J.; Möller, M. (2021). (2809) Proposal to conserve the name Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke (Gesneriaceae) against Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck (published as fossil Magnoliophyta). <em>Taxon.</em> 70(2): 437-438., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12484
note: a nom. rej. prop. in botany, although may be accepted as a zoological taxon [details]   

verified source for family Middleton, D. J.; Bertling, M.; McNeill, J.; Möller, M. (2021). (2809) Proposal to conserve the name Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke (Gesneriaceae) against Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck (published as fossil Magnoliophyta). <em>Taxon.</em> 70(2): 437-438., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12484 [details]   

name verified source Middleton, D. J.; Bertling, M.; McNeill, J.; Möller, M. (2021). (2809) Proposal to conserve the name Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke (Gesneriaceae) against Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck (published as fossil Magnoliophyta). <em>Taxon.</em> 70(2): 437-438., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12484 [details]   

extant flag source Middleton, D. J.; Bertling, M.; McNeill, J.; Möller, M. (2021). (2809) Proposal to conserve the name Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke (Gesneriaceae) against Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck (published as fossil Magnoliophyta). <em>Taxon.</em> 70(2): 437-438., available online at https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12484 [details]   
From other sources
Taxonomic remark Described as a fossil plant (under botanical Code) but now considered to be a trace fossil, refer Middleton et al., 2021. Under the botanical Code it competes with the later name Tetraphyllum Griffith ex C.B. Clarke, 1883, which is proposed for conservation by Middleton et al., loc. cit., although it can be used as a valid name in zoology. According to these authors, Bertling, 2019 noted that Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck had neither been placed in synonymy nor further used in the literature since it was published. Index Nominum Genericorum (2022 version) lists Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck as "Not validly published: a provisional name", however Middleton et al. consider that it is validly published. [details]

This service is powered by LifeWatch Belgium
Learn more»