(2809) Proposal to conserve the name Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke (Gesneriaceae) against Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck (published as fossil Magnoliophyta)

Abstract

(2809) Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 5: 136. Jul 1883 [Gesner.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: T. bengalense C.B. Clarke (H) Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck in Palaeontographica 26: 137. Apr–Mai 1880 [Foss.], nom. rej. prop. Typus: T. dubium Hosius & Marck Tetraphyllum as a name for a genus in the Gesneriaceae was proposed by Griffith (Not. Pl. Asiat. 4: 148. 1854) as one of his “Temporary names referring to undescribed genera in the collection of the author”. It was validly published by Clarke (in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 5: 136–137. 1883) with one species, Tetraphyllum bengalense C.B. Clarke. The genus now includes three species from North-East India, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Vietnam. The generic name is in current use, has been used in many recent taxonomic and molecular phylogenetic publications (Burtt in Thai Forest Bull., Bot. 29: 81–109. 2001; Möller & al. in Amer. J. Bot. 96: 989–1010. 2009, in Pl. Syst. Evol. 292: 223–248. 2011, in Guihaia 36: 44–60. 2016, in Rheedea 27: 23–41. 2017; Weber & al. in Taxon 60: 767–790. 2011, in Selbyana 31: 68–94. 2013, in Rheedea 30: 5–47. 2020; Middleton & Möller in Taxon 61: 1286–1295. 2012; Anderson & Middleton in Edinburgh J. Bot. 70: 121–176. 2013; Möller & Clark in Selbyana 31: 95–125. 2013; Middleton & al. in Phytotaxa 161: 241–269. 2014, in Pl. Syst. Evol. 301: 1947–1966. 2015; Petrova & al. in Int. J. Pl. Sci. 176: 499–514. 2015; Zhou & al. in Pl. Syst. Evol. 303: 587–602. 2017; Ogutcen & al. in Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 157: 107068. 2021 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107068), and is the type of the recently published subtribe Tetraphyllinae A. Weber & Mich. Möller (in Weber & al., l.c. 2013: 87) of the tribe Trichosporeae, subfamily Didymocarpoideae. Tetraphyllum as a name for a genus of fossil plants was published by Hosius & von der Marck (in Palaeontographica 26: 137–138. 1880). Doweld (in Phytotaxa 329: 293–295. 2017) highlighted the fact that this made Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke a later homonym and proposed the name Tetraphylloides Doweld as its replacement, along with the necessary combinations for the three species. Doweld also proposed Tetraphylloidinae Doweld as a replacement name for subtribe Tetraphyllinae. Bertling (in Phytotaxa 425: 63–66. 2019) noted that very soon after its publication in 1880, the status of Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck as a plant was reassessed, and today it is considered to be a trace fossil and is, therefore, governed under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Ride & al., Int. Code Zool. Nomencl., ed. 4. 1999 & https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-international-code-of-zoological-nomenclature/). Bertling, consequently, argued that as names governed under different Codes are not to be treated as homonyms, that Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke was therefore not a later homonym of Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck and that Tetraphylloidinae Doweld, Tetraphylloides Doweld, and the three replacement names for the species were all illegitimate. Bertling also noted that Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck had neither been placed in synonymy nor further used in the literature since it was published. If Bertling (l.c.) had been correct, there would be no further need for any action and we would return to the status quo before Doweld (l.c.). However, under the ICN Art. 54.1(a) (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), because Hosius & von der Marck (l.c.) stated they were publishing a new genus of fossil plants, the fact that Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck is no longer considered to be a plant does not prevent it from making Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke a later homonym. Index Nominum Genericorum (Farr & Zijlstra, Index Nominum Genericorum (Plantarum). 1996+. http://botany.si.edu/ing/, accessed 25 Jan 2021) cites Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck as “Not validly published: a provisional name”. We presume this conclusion was reached based on Hosius & von der Marck's statement “Der Umstand, dass zwei dieser Exemplare die Reste eines kohlenähnlichen Ueberzuges, wie ein solcher bei fossilen Pflanzentheilen gewöhnlich ist, erkennen lassen, veranlasst uns, dieselben als pflanzliche anzusehen und vorläufig als Tetraphyllum dubium […] hier anzuführen” (The fact that two of these specimens show the remains of a coal-like coating, as is common in fossil parts of plants, prompts us to regard them as vegetable and to list them here for the time being as Tetraphyllum dubium) and in particular their use of “vorläufig” (“for the time being” or “provisionally”) which might suggest that T. dubium was a “provisional name” and consequently not validly published under Art. 36.1 of the ICN. However, Hosius & von der Marck included T. dubium under “Plantae incertae sedis” suggesting that it was the doubt as to taxonomic position that prompted the use of “vorläufig”. Moreover, in the Shenzhen Code, the wording of Art. 36.1 was deliberately revised to clarify that the test for valid publication was acceptance or otherwise of the name, not the exact wording used to present the novelty. The name is clearly accepted elsewhere in the publication. It appears in the list of the distribution of plants in the different levels of the Westphalian chalk formations (Hosius & von der Marck, l.c.: 220, 232), and, most importantly, in the alphabetical index where it appears in bold (Hosius & von der Marck, l.c.: 241) indicating that it was one of the authors’ listed names of Westphalian Cretaceous plants. In summary, there is no suggestion that the name was not accepted by Hosius & von der Marck and that they did not intend it to be validly published. Due to the confusion as to whether Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck was validly published, the confusion over whether Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck and Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke should be treated as homonyms governed by the same Code, and because Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke is a name in current use and Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck has not appeared in the literature since it was published, we propose the conservation of Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke against Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck. If the conservation proposal is not accepted, then the replacement names proposed by Doweld (l.c.) would stand. DJM, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3754-1452 MB, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8040-611X JM, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6901-0624 MM, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2819-0323