New posting of vascular plant suprageneric names
James L. Reveal
jr19 at UMAIL.UMD.EDU
Sun Jan 7 10:44:57 CST 2001
A new posting of extant vascular plant suprageneric names is now available.
Flat-file listings organized by family may be seen at:
Flat-file listings organized by generic name may be seen at:
A new interactive listing will be available shortly (probably within ten
The new listings treats all type-based extant validly published vascular
plant names published from 1753 through 2000 for the ranks of subkingdom,
division, subdivision, class, subclass, superorder, order and family.
Similar data are available for names at the ranks of suborder, subfamily,
tribe and subtribe published from 1753 through 1899.
As always, corrections and additions are greatly appreciated. Copies of the
appropriate page(s) should be mailed to me at 18625 Spring Canyon Road,
Montrose, CO 81401-7906, U.S.A.
The names and bibliographic references reflect, to a considerable degree,
the decisions reached at the St. Louis nomenclature session held in 1999
and included in the St. Louis version of the International Code of
Botanical Nomenclature. Several matters relating to suprageneric names were
referred to a special committee yet to be established (see
http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/fam/nomrept.html). However, some of the
delayed considerations have been adopted. For example, the rankless
Endlicher names long considered to be names at the rank of family remain
listed as family names. Likewise, the names proposed at the rank of section
(rather than subtribe) in the works of Engler & Prantl are here retained as
validly published names at the rank of subtribe. Several otherwise validly
published names at the rank of tribe and subtribe proposed with the prefix
"Eu-" and traditionally considered to be available are not validly
published as the proposal to preserve these name was defeated at St. Louis.
Nonetheless, he delayed proposal relating to authorships were followed.
This means that if a name is based solely upon the citation of a previously
published valid name then a parenthetical authorship is retained. In all
other cases, no parenthetical authorship is given.
Still, the information presented does not reflect the bizarre treatment of
conserved family listed in App. II in the new funeral-black edition of the
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Greuter, et al., Regnum Veg.
138). I have asked the Committee of Spermatophyta to review the curious
decisions reached by the Editorial Committee for the Code believing that
their treatment of numerous names will be found not to be supported by
provisions in the Code. Turland & Barrie will publish shortly in the
journal Taxon what was decided by the Editorial Committee, accounting in
their paper only about two-thirds of the names they failed to adopt.
Unfortunately, no rationale was present to justify their actions. I have
prepared a rebuttal to their paper and have provided evidences why each of
the names (save that of Poaceae) I submitted to the Editorial Committee
prior to the Nomenclature Session in St. Louis was validly published and
should have been adopted.
Finally, additional information of suprageneric names is available at:
News of new names, corrections and reviews of publications relating to
suprageneric nomenclature may be found at:
James L. Reveal
More information about the Taxacom