(3005) Proposal to conserve the name Botryopteris Renault (fossil Pteridophyta) against Botryopteris C. Presl (Ophioglossaceae)

(3005) Botryopteris Renault in Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci. 80: 202. Feb (sero)–Apr (prim.) 1875, nom. cons. prop. Typus: B. forensis Renault. (H) Botryopteris C. Presl, Reliq. Haenk. 1: 76. 12 Jun–30 Nov 1825, nom. rej. prop. Typus: B. mexicana C. Presl. The genus Botryopteris C. Presl (Reliq. Haenk. 1: 76. 1825) was first established for a single extant fern species, B. mexicana C. Presl. Sprengel (Syst. Veg. 4: 23. 1827) transferred B. mexicana to Helminthostachys as H. mexicana (C. Presl) Spreng., considering Botryopteris to be a later heterotypic synonym of Helminthostachys Kaulf. (Enum. Filic.: 28. 1824), ultimately based on Osmunda zeylanica L. (Sp. Pl.: 1063. 1753) (≡ Botrychium zeylanicum (L.) Sw. in J. Bot. (Schrader) 1800(2): 111. 1801) but that Kaulfuss illegitimately named H. dulcis. Based on additional specimens from Ceylon, Hooker (Gen. Fil.: t. 47B. 1840) concluded that B. mexicana C. Presl did not just belong in Helminthostachys but was conspecific with its type (O. zeylanica L.) and combined them as H. zeylanica (L.) Hook. (l.c.). Presl (Suppl. Tent. Pterid.: 60. 1845) initially accepted Hooker's assignment of Botryopteris to Helminthostachys, but renamed B. mexicana as the illegitimate H. crenata because the original specimen of B. mexicana was collected from the Philippines but erroneously labelled as from Mexico. Although Presl (in Abh. Königl. Böhm. Ges. Wiss., ser. 5, 5: 324. 1848) reinstated Botryopteris and replaced H. crenata by B. crenata C. Presl., this opinion was not generally accepted as subsequently discovered specimens from the Philippines were consistently attributed to H. zeylanica (L.) Hook. (Coritico & Amoroso in Nat. Conservation Res. 5: 82. 2000). Consequently, today, Botryopteris is considered a synonym of Helminthostachys and all the aforementioned species names are treated as either homotypic or heterotypic synonyms of H. zeylanica (L.) Hook. (see the POWO, https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:17116690-1). In 1875, seemingly unaware of Botryopteris C. Presl, Renault (in Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci. 80: 202. Feb–Apr 1875a) established another genus Botryopteris which is now a widespread and common fossil-genus with over 20 species documented in Carboniferous and Permian-aged strata of both Southern and Northern Hemispheres (see Zhou & al. in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 311(104849). 2023). Botryopteris was first published by Renault in two different but almost contemporaneous publications, that cited above and in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 6, 1: 223. Apr–Mai 1875b. The former (l.c. 1875a) was merely a summarized report of Renault's presentation on “Étude du genre Botryopteris” to the Academy of Sciences at their “Séance du 18 janvier 1875” without any of the illustrations that were included in the full account published later in the Annales des sciences naturelles, but nevertheless included a full diagnosis and so fulfils the requirements of Art. 38.1 of the ICN (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) for valid publication of a generic name. The full account of the genus in Renault (l.c. 1875b) has been almost universally accepted as providing the legitimate protologue of Botryopteris Renault (e.g., Renault in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 6, 3: 7. 1876; Darrah in Bot. Mus. Leafl. 7: 162. 1939; Galtier in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Autun 88(4): 18. 1978; Rößler & Galtier in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 127: 105. 2003). The precise dates of the two publications are difficult to establish (see below), but it is clear that the report in the Comptes rendus predates the fuller account in the Annales. Despite its general neglect, the earlier publication must be accepted as there is no provision to conserve a name against itself, i.e., against an earlier isonym (cf. Art. 14 Note 1). [The range of dates of publication of each of the two accounts of Botryopteris Renault has been determined as follows: Each volume of the Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des Sciences (Compt. Rend. Hebd. Séances Acad. Sci.) appeared first in a series of parts (fascicles) published weekly. Volume 80 was that for the first half of 1875 and would comprise 26 fascicles. The account of Botryopteris on p. 202 is in the third fascicle, the front wrapper of which is retained in the Gallica copy on the web (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3037k/f138.item). This is dated “18 Janvier 1875” but this is the date of the proceedings at the Academy not of publication of the fascicle. According to the editing process described on the following page of the wrapper (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3037k/f139.item) the manuscripts should have been provided by Thursday 21 January, and the printing sometime after, but delays were common. The Société Botanique de France cite Renault's article in the Compte rendus in its “Revue Bibliographique” for April–June 1875 (Bull. Soc. Bot. France 22, Rev. Bibliogr.: 72. 1875, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/8645#page/393/mode/1up), not in that for January–March. The Revue bibliographique universelle cited this fascicle of the Compte rendus in its March 1875 number (Rev. Bibliogr. Univers., sér. 2, 1: 113. 1875, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k4242848/f113.item), but it is lacking from the February issue. From all this we conclude that Botryopteris was first published (in the Compte rendus) between end of February and early April 1875. Volume 1 of Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 6 was also the volume for the first half of 1875. Although no copies with the original wrappers have been detected, this journal seems also to have been published in a number of parts. The information on the 16-page signatures of which the volume was composed appears at the foot of the relevant pages (e.g., pages 17, 33, 65, 81, etc.) along with the Cahier (part) to which the signature belonged. From this, there appear to have been six cahiers which might have appeared monthly, and as p. 223 was in cahier 4, this would suggest a late-April publication date. On the other hand the Bibliographie de la France reports a reprint of the memoir (no. 5422) from Annales des sciences naturelles with a publication date of 22 May 1875 (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k867407/f628.item). From this, we conclude that the relevant portion of the journal was published in late April or May 1875, clearly after the publication in the Compte rendus.] Two species were originally described within Botryopteris Renault: B. forensis Renault (l.c. 1875a) and B. dubius Renault (l.c. 1875a). Botryopteris dubius Renault was later referred to the fructification fossil-genus Zygopteris Corda (Beitr. Fl. Vorwelt: 81. 1845) by Renault (Étud. Gîtes Minér., Bassin Autun Épinac., Fl. Foss.: 42. 1896), and now has been recombined into Biscalitheca as B. dubius (Renault) Galtier (in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Autun 88(4): 22. 1978). Darrah (l.c.: 157) appears to be the first account to state that Botryopteris forensis Renault was the type of Botryopteris Renault, in accord with Art. 10.2. This is earlier than the selection by Mamay (in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 37: 413. 1950) cited in Index Nominum Genericorum (https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/ing/). The problem of Botryopteris Renault being a later (junior) homonym of Botryopteris C. Presl was mentioned in several publications (e.g., Potonié in Naturwiss. Wochenschr. 15: 313. Jul 1900; Reed in Taxon 4: 107. 1955; Kerp in Taxon 30: 662. 1981). Potonié (l.c. Jul 1900: 314, in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. I(4): 479. Aug 1900) suggested to use a prefix “p” for the later homonyms of some late Paleozoic fossil genera (i.e., p-Botryopteris), but even he and Gothan did not use this scheme in their later publications (Potonié, Lehrb. Pfl.-Palaeont., ed. 2: 121. 1921). Pichi-Sermolli (in Webbia 26: 500. 1972) argued that “Botryopteris Renault is a well-known genus and ought to be included in the list of Nomina Generica Conservanda.” In the Nomenclature Committee for Fossil Plants at Leningrad (Stafleu in Taxon 24: 690. 1975), it was recommended to propose the conservation of Botryopteris Renault against Botryopteris C. Presl. Unfortunately, however, no formal proposal has been submitted to the Committee since the Leningrad Congress. Therefore, the decision was “‘no recommendation’ on Botryopteris until and unless a proposal to conserve is presented” (Traverse in Taxon 30: 473. 1981). In an attempt to resolve these issues, Doweld (in Bot. Zhurn. 86(12): 73. 2001) proposed replacing Botryopteris Renault, non C. Presl, with a new name Botryopteridium Doweld and, at the same time, proposed to split the genus into three, Primofilix Doweld, Parabotryopteridium Doweld and Botryopteridium Doweld to replace Botryopteris sensu stricto. However, almost all subsequent authors have rejected this reclassification and still use Botryopteris Renault instead of Botryopteridium and include in it Doweld's new proposed generic names (Rößler & Galtier, l.c.; Taylor & al., Paleobotany, ed. 2: 443. 2009; Wang & al. in Cui & Shijun, Foss. Fl. China 1. 2009; Krings & al. in Mycoscience 52: 18. 2011; Barthel in Geol. Saxon. 61(2): 166. 2016; Ma & al. in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 234: 11. 2016, in Palaeoworld 26: 490. 2017; He & al. in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 273(104136): 2. 2020). One of the few exceptions is a publication by Zhou & al. (l.c.), in which Botryopteridium Doweld was simply used as a substitution of Botryopteris Renault (see also Bek & al. in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 316(104932): 3. 2023). Zhou & al. (l.c.) highlighted numerous inaccuracies in Doweld's generic diagnoses and disagreed with his reclassification. The use of Botryopteridium Doweld is considered legitimate. However, this practice may potentially give rise to new nomenclatural disputes in cases where palaeobotanists hold differing opinions regarding the acceptance and scope of the three newly proposed fossil genera (e.g., we may see three different names “Botryopteridium antiqua”, “Promofilix antiqua” and the original “Botryopteris antiqua” in future publications). Doweld's decision to replace Botryopteris Renault with Botryopteridium Doweld essentially resulted in the displacement of a well-established name for purely nomenclatural reasons (Greuter & Nicolson in Taxon 42: 927. 1993). Keeping the nomenclatural stability of Botryopteris Renault is scientifically important in palaeobotanical research because it represents one of the potential ancestors of modern leptosporangiate ferns (He & al., l.c. 2020; Zhou & al., l.c.). For this reason, we propose the conservation of the generic name Botryopteris Renault against Botryopteris C. Presl under Art. 14.1, especially considering the fact that the earlier homonym Botryopteris C. Presl has fallen out of use, having, since 1840, been replaced by the earlier heterotypic synonym Helminthostachys Kaulf. (Hooker, l.c.). Acceptance of this proposal will permit the legitimate precedence of Botryopteris Renault over Botryopteridium Doweld under Art. 11.3, and will allow palaeobotanists to continue using the names of the fossil-genus Botryopteris Renault and its component fossil-species which have been widely and extensively documented, and almost universally accepted for more than 100 years. W-MZ, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6190-6234 X-YH, https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2563-6222 S-JW, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9147-6511 JP, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9240-9206 RR, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9692-2960 GWR, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0186-6546 JH, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0286-8236 JW, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2193-2195 The authors thank Patrick S. Herendeen (Chicago Botanic Garden) and Christopher J. Cleal (Bristol University) for their valuable discussions on the nomenclatural issues and their help on the format of the text. They also thank Valéry Malécot (Institut de Récherches en Horticulture et Sémences, Angers, France) for his extensive advice on the dates of publication in 1875 of Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des Sciences and Annales des sciences naturelles, Botanique. Financial support was granted by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42172018, 42230210) and the Youth Innovation Promotion Association of Chinese Academy of Sciences (2022312). This paper is a contribution to the Deep-time Digital Earth (DDE) Big Science Program.