(97‐100) Proposals regarding the nomenclature of fossil plants

Abstract

The rules governing the nomenclature of fossil plants have long been unsatisfactory. Partly due to semantic disagreement, partly owing to the problems inherent in the fragmentary nature of fossils in general, and partly perhaps as a consequence of different traditions developing in various branches of palaeobotany, it has so far been impossible to produce a set of provisions that would reconcile past and current nomenclatural practices of palaeobotanists with the tenets of the nomenclatural Code. Recently, Fensome & Skog (in Taxon 46: 557-562. 1997) have produced two proposals that aim at rectifying this situation (but see comments below). In parallel, the botanical representatives in the International Committee of Bionomenclature tried to reformulate the rules on plant fossil nomenclature in the BioCode drafts. The results of their efforts, in which they were encouraged by expert feedback from several palaeobotanists, is not however directly relevant to the BioCode (the zoological rules, surprisingly, do not single out animal fossils by giving them any kind of special treatment), but falls fully within the jurisdiction of the botanical Code. It is therefore logical that we present our conclusions here, in a purely botanical context. We completely agree with Fensome & Skog (l.c.) on the inappropriateness of the present definition of form-genera in Art. 3.3, which introduced an unnecessary element of taxonomic judgement into fossil plant nomenclature. Deletion of Art. 3.3, as proposed by Fensome & Skog, is also a part of our own set of proposals. We must however comment on some of the implications of their second proposal, Prop. (05), with which we partly disagree.