(104) Request for a binding decision on whether the names Actinostephanos Khursevich (Bacillariophyta) and Actinostephanus F. Wen & al. (Gesneriaceae) are sufficiently alike to be confused

Abstract

(104) Actinostephanos Khursevich (1989) [Algae] Actinostephanus F. Wen & al. (2022) [Angiosp.: Gesner.] The genus Actinostephanos was established by phycologist Galina K. Khursevich, Republic of Belarus (in Bot. Zhurn. 74: 487. 1989) to accommodate a single extinct marine and brackish-water planktonic species, Actinostephanos matrensis (Pant.) Khursevich (≡ Stephanodiscus matrensis Pant. in Beitr. Foss. Bacill. Ung. 2: 114. 1889). Later Khursevich & Tsoj added a second, new species, Actinostephanos rudis Khursevich & Tsoj (in Algologiya 2: 106–107. 1992) from the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench (North-West Pacific Ocean), and Kozyrenko (in Bot. Zhurn. 88(11): 126. 2003) published the new combination A. podolicus (Missuna) Kozyr., based on a variety of A. matrensis. Currently the genus Actinostephanos Khursevich includes only three species names. The generic name Actinostephanos consists of two parts, both derived from the Greek. The first part, “Actino-”, is derived from ἀκτίς (aktís, “ray”, “beam”), meaning radiating; the second half, “-stephanos”, is a masculine given name derived from the Greek word στέφανος (stéphanos), meaning “wreath”, “crown”. As a result of morphological and phylogenetic analysis, the new monotypic genus Actinostephanus F. Wen, Y.G. Wei & L.F. Fu was established (Wen & al. in PhytoKeys 193: 95. 2022) from China with the type A. enpingensis F. Wen & al. (l.c.: 96). Currently, the genus Actinostephanus F. Wen & al. is an endemic to China with a single species. The generic name Actinostephanus consists of two parts, both derived from the Greek as with Actinostephanos, i.e., ἀκτίς (aktís, “ray”, “beam”) and στέφανος (stéphanos, “wreath”, “crown”). In my opinion, the two names are sufficiently alike to cause confusion despite belonging to different groups and geographical regions. For example, Khursevich & Tsoj (l.c.), mentioned “Actinostephanus” as a keyword when describing the new species Actinostephanos rudis. In addition, Oreshkina (in Kuznetsova & Muzylov, Quest. Micropaleontol. 31: 138. 1996) referred to “Actinostephanus rudis sp. n.”. Therefore, I am requesting a binding decision under the Art. 53.2 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) as to whether the generic names Actinostephanos Khursevich and Actinostephanus F. Wen & al. are sufficiently alike to be confused and thus should be treated as homonyms. I believe that nomenclatural stability would be best served by a decision to treat them as confusable names. If a decision is made to treat them as homonyms, the later-published name, Actinostephanus F. Wen & al., would have to be given a new name in accordance with the Code. UBD, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7489-7645 I am grateful to Management authorities and the Principal Dr. M. Subhas and the Head Dr. M.B. Shende of the Department of Botany, Janata Mahavidyalaya, Chandrapur for providing facilities. I am grateful to John McNeill and John Wiersema for editorial comments and improving the manuscript.