55 (1) • February 2006: 219–222 Cleal & al. • The type of Nilssoniopteris A clarification of the type of Nilssoniopteris Nathorst (fossil Gymnospermo- phyta, Bennettitales) Christopher J. Cleal1, P. McAllister Rees2, Gea Zijlstra3 & David J. Cantrill4 1 Department of Biodiversity & Systematic Biology, National Museums & Galleries of Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NP, U.K. [email protected] (author of corespondence) 2 Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, U.S.A. 3 Nationaal Herbarium Nederland, Utrecht University branch, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4 Department of Palaeobotany, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, Stockholm 104 05 Sweden. KEYWORDS: Bennettitales, Nilssoniopteris, nomenclature, typification. INTRODUCTION TYPIFICATION AND AUTHORSHIP Nilssoniopteris Nathorst, 1909 is a widely used OF NILSSONIA TENUINERVIS name for a morphogenus of Mesozoic foliage consisting NATHORST of undivided or only weakly divided leaves, with the Harris (1943) regarded Nilssonia tenuinervis Nat- characteristic syndetocheilic stomata of the Bennettitales horst, 1880 as a nomen nudum, being merely a name (Harris, 1969). The genus has a world-wide distribution given in a field guide. He therefore took Nilssonia ten- during Late Triassic to Late Cretaceous times, and 29 uinervis as having been first validly published by Seward species have been published up until 1983 (Jongmans & (1900) and designated the specimen in Seward’s fig. 41 Dijkstra, 1961, 1968; Dijkstra & van Amerom, 1983). as the “holotype”. However, this is incorrect. The prob- The type of the name is normally given as lem may have arisen because Nathorst’s (1880) paper Nilssoniopteris vittata (Brongniart) Florin, 1933 (Basio- was written in Swedish. The translation of Nathorst’s nym: Taeniopteris vittata Brongniart, 1831, type of Tae- (1880) text shows that an unequivocal diagnosis is given niopteris Brongniart, 1828) mainly following Harris for Nilssonia tenuinervis: “In addition Nilssonia n. sp., (1969). If Harris (1969) was correct in this, Nilssoniop- which because of its extremely fine venation should be teris and Taeniopteris would have the same type. How- called tenuinervis. It appears to resemble very much ever, no mention of the species name N. vittata is made Taeniopteris, with which it has also been confused up to in the protologue of Nilssoniopteris. Nathorst (1909: now in England, but firstly the veins are here and there 28–29) assigns only one species to the genus, Nilssoniop- branched, and (secondly) the typical Nilssonia like shape teris tenuinervis (Nathorst) Nathorst (basionym Nils- of the apex show what type of plant this really was”. sonia tenuinervis Nathorst, 1880), and so following Art. Although brief, it mentions critical details of the 10.2 of the ICBN (Greuter & al., 2000) this must be taken venation and leaf shape, and is a sufficient diagnosis for as the type. This raises a problem in the application of the valid publication under the Code. It certainly gives no generic name as Nilssonia tenuinervis Nathorst is widely less detail than in Seward (1900), which Harris (1943, interpreted as a cycadalean species (Harris, 1964). 1964) regarded as the first valid publication of the The nomenclatural problems surrounding Nilssoni- species. Furthermore, Nathorst (1880) clearly stated that opteris have been recognised for some time. Gomolitzky he based the species on specimens that he had collected (1987) attempted to overcome them by proposing to con- from Cloughton Wyke in Yorkshire, and so his collec- serve Nilssoniopteris, but this was rejected by the tions from this locality may be taken to be the syntypes. Committee for Fossil Plants (Traverse, 1993). The solu- Nathorst (1909) later figured some of these specimens, tion, we believe, does not require the name to be con- including a cuticle preparation. The most obvious choice served, but rather that the issue of the typification of for a lectotype is specimen S 134241 in the Swedish Nilssoniopteris is settled. In this paper, we show that Museum of Natural History, Stockholm. This is the spec- Harris (1964) misinterpreted Nilssonia tenuinervis and imen figured by Nathorst (1909: Pl. 6, Fig. 23) that that it is in fact a bennettitalean foliage morphospecies. according to its cuticle characters and morphology Nilssoniopteris may thus continue to be used legitimate- agrees most closely with the diagnosis. Although ly as a morphogenus for bennettitalean foliage, without Nathorst (1909) described the cuticular features it is the need for conservation. unclear from his publication which specimen it was 219 Cleal & al. • The type of Nilssoniopteris 55 (1) • February 2006: 219–222 derived from. Furthermore Nathorst (1909) stated the Cleal & Rees (2003) have shown that more or less importance of cuticular features in being able to distin- entire bennettitalean leaves, superficially similar to T. guish Nilssonia from Nilssoniopteris. Hamshaw Thomas vittata but where cuticles are preserved, should be more re-examined the specimens in Stockholm and stated that correctly referred to as Nilssoniopteris solitaria (Phil- the material figured by Nathorst (1909) in Pl. 6 (Figs. 23, lips) Cleal & Rees, 2003 (basionym: Scolopendrium soli- 25) is the material that the cuticle illustrated on pl. 7 (Fig. tarium Phillips, 1829). Nilssonia tenuinervis is thus a 21) in the same publication is derived from. These slides later taxonomic synonym of Scolopendrium solitarium have been remounted in the past, and we could not relo- and so Nilsoniopteris tenuinervis is no longer the correct cate the cuticle fragment illustrated by Nathorst (1909), name of the species. However, this does not make N. due to fragmentation in the remounting process. New solitaria the type of Nilssoniopteris; the generic type cuticular preparations from this specimen (S 134241) remains N. tenuinervis. were made to confirm the features, as amongst the mate- Although most of the syntypes of Nilssoniopteris rial from Cloughton Wyke is a similar leaf form with tenuinervis are undoubtedly bennettitalean, one of the cycadalean cuticle (see below). The following descrip- figured specimens (Nathorst, 1909, Pl. 6, Fig. 24) is dif- tion adopts the terminology recommended by Sincock ferent, having a cycadalean epidermal structure and and Watson (1988) and modified by Watson and Sincock venation. This was first pointed out by Thomas & Ban- (1992). Leaves are hypostomatic, adaxial cuticle thicker croft (1913), who argued that, as the syntypes with benet- than abaxial, epidermal cells square to rectangular (Fig. titalean characters belong to what they called Taeniop- 1A, B, D), up to 60 µm long by 41 µm wide, anticlinal teris vittata, the species epithet tenuinervis should be cell walls sinuous and buttressed. Abaxial cuticle thinner linked to the one cycadalean syntype. Consequently, (Fig. 1C), epidermal cells square to rectangular, up to 57 most subsequent authors have used the name Nilssonia µm long by 30 µm wide, anticlinal walls sinuous and tenuinervis for cycadalean leaves, most notably Harris buttressed (Fig. 1D). Stomata scattered, oriented oblique- (1943, 1964). This is perverse, however, as it clearly con- ly with respect to leaf length (Fig. 1C). Stomatal pit flicts with Nathorst’s concept of the species. In 1880, small, stomatal aperture up to 20 um long, slit-like, dor- Nathorst clearly stated that the veins fork, whereas sal epidermal flange of guard cells butterfly-shaped (Fig. Nilssonia tenuinervis sensu Thomas & Bancroft (1913) 1 E, F). Subsurface bodies present (Fig. 1B). has simple veins. It also conflicts with Nathorst’s (1909) The features described above are consistent with the revision of the species, which is unequivocally linked description of Nathorst (1909) and indicate placement in with the distinctive benettitalean cuticles. Thomas & the Bennettitales. As specimen S 134241 conforms most Bancroft’s (1913) emendation of Nilssonia tenuinervis closely to the diagnosis given in Nathorst (1909), both in must therefore be rejected. gross morphology and cuticular features, it is designated as the lectotype. NOMENCLATURE OF NILSSONIA TENUINERVIS SENSU THOMAS & TYPIFICATION OF NILSSONIOPTERIS BANCROFT NATHORST The correct name for Nilssonia tenuinervis sensu It has been widely accepted (e.g., Florin, 1933; Har- Thomas & Bancroft involves taxonomic issues that are ris, 1943, 1969) that most of the syntypes of N. tenuiner- beyond the scope of this paper. Thomas & Bancroft vis, including the specimen designated here as lectotype, (1913) regarded it as conspecific with Nilssonia orien- are conspecific with the species widely referred to as talis Heer, 1878 but the latter species is quite different, Nilssoniopteris vittata (Brongniart) Florin (basionym: having shorter and broader leaves, less dense and more Taeniopteris vittata Brongniart). This is why Harris oblique veins, and a transversely-waved lamina (Harris, (1969) incorrectly designated N. vittata as the type of 1943, 1964). Nilssonia obtusa (Nathorst) Harris, 1932 Nilssoniopteris. However, the lectotype of Taeniopteris also bears some similarity to N. tenuinervis sensu vittata Brongniart is an impression fossil from a macro- Thomas & Bancroft in the shape of the leaves and fea- flora that never yields cuticles (the Middle Jurassic of tures of the epidermis but, as pointed out by Harris Stonesfield, Oxfordshire, U.K.) and whose systematic (1964), the veining is much less dense and almost cer- position is thus uncertain (Cleal