• Nomenclatural status

User comments

• Doweld Alexander at: 12/13/2018 20:11

  Doweld (in Taxon 67: 1230-1232. 13 Dec 2018) proposed to conserve the name with a conserved type [ovulate cone] to exclude dubious stem remains. Schimper recognized a single species within Glyptolepis, G. keuperiana, identifying it with two previous descriptions of a fossil-species made by Bronn (in Neues Jahrb. Mineral. Geognosie 1858: 51. 1858) and Schenk (in Verh. Phys.-Med. Ges. Würzburg 9: 273. 1859) based on stem and leaf remains and attributed by both to Voltzia heterophylla Brongn. (l.c.: 451) [type excluded]. Two other sets of names were included by Schimper under G. keuperiana, Pinites keuperianus Unger (Chlor. Protogaea: 31. 1842) (≡ Araucarites keuperianus (Unger) Göpp. in Bronn, Index Palaeontol. 2: 42. 1846 ≡ Dadoxylon keuperianum (Unger) Endl., Syn. Conif.: 299. 1847) and Voltzia coburgensis Schauroth (in Z. Deutsch. Geol. Ges. 4: 540. 1852) both based on stems, the former showing anatomical structure, the latter not. Schimper, although stating that he had founded Glyptolepis upon cones, expressed the view that his fossil material could be combined with these stem species without risk of error (“Je crois qu’on peut réunir, sans risquer de se tromper, le bois silicifié décrit sous le nom d’Araucarites keuperianus, le Voltzia coburgensis Schaur. et les cônes sur lesquels j’ai fondé le genre, parce que ces débris se rencontrent dans les mêmes couches, sans mélange d’autres Conifères.”). In consequence, Schimper adopted the epithet of the earliest of these names, but, contrary to his usual style for new combinations, he published the name as “Glyptolepis keuperiana Sch.” without any parenthetical author citation as would have been expected had he intended it to be based on Pinites keuperianus Unger. However, under current rules of nomenclature, to be legitimate G. keuperiana must be considered to be based on P. keuperianus and to be typified by the type of that name.