[Taxacom] Cyanoprokaryota help
Paul van Rijckevorsel
dipteryx at freeler.nl
Fri Mar 15 03:42:08 CDT 2013
From: "Sergio Diaz Martinez" <sdiaz at conabio.gob.mx>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 2:13 AM
> In addition to my last comment. Cyanoprokaryota was introduced by Komárek
> & Anagnostidis 1999. I guess Komarek uses the term to support his idea
> about a separate nomenclatural code. Unless i'm wrong, the cyanobacteria
> are still included as algae in the International Code of Nomenclature for
> algae, fungi, and plants. Under this code, the name at the rank of
> Division for this group must end in -phycota, (not -phyta as Cyanophyta)
> Article. 16.3. Then Cyanoprokaryota is invalid.
Yes, the nomenclature of this group is governed by the ICNafp.
No, under that Code, a name for this group at the rank of Division
does not have to end in -phycota. That would only be the case if it
were an "automatically typified name" (a name based on a genus name).
The names Cyanobacteria, Cyanophyta, and Cyanoprokaryota
all fall under the heading of "descriptive names", and, if there is
otherwise no obstacle under the rules, can be equally used, no
matter what rank this group is treated in, or whatever taxonomic
position it is assigned.
This is somewhat similar to publishing the name Embryopsida
(in Taxon 61: 1097. 2012) for the land plants, so as to have
a name ending in -opsida, taken to indicate that it is the name
of a class. This is perfectly allowed, but the much more familiar-
sounding Embryophyta could be used at any rank (above that
of family), if it were validly published (which I believe it wasn't?).
And indeed, the new name Embryopsida can be used at any
rank, so also for a subclass, or an order, etc.
More information about the Taxacom