Culmites BRONGNIART

Cleal, Christopher J. & Thomas, Barry A., 2018, Nomenclatural Status Of The Palaeobotanical “ Artificial Taxa ” Established In Brongniart’S 1822 “ Classification ” Paper, Fossil Imprint 74 (1 - 2), pp. 9-28 : 12-13

Culmites BRONGNIART

Text-fig. 1b

1822a Culmites BRONGNIART , p. 209.

Ty p e. Culmites nodosus BRONGNIART, 1822a, p. 215 , pl. 1, fig. 1 (see comments by La Motte 1950: 138); Loc.: Eocene Series, Montrouge near Paris, France. Figured without name by Cuvier (1811: pl. 2, fig. 1F).

D i a g n o s i s. “Tiges articulées lisses, impression unique à chaque articulation.”

D i s c u s s i o n. Brongniart (1822a) referred to just one species in the protologue, Culmites nodosus . In the later published part of the paper ( Brongniart 1822b, c) he established two further species: Culmites ambiguus BRONGNIART, 1822b, p. 45 (Type: Cuvier 1811: pl. 2, fig. 6); and Culmites anomalus BRONGNIART, 1822b, p. 45 (Type: Alexander Brongniart 1810: pl. 23, fig. 15). However, Brongniart (1822b: 45) unequivocally stated that C. nodosus is the type.

Brongniart (1822a) compared the type of Culmites with stems of various monocots, including grasses, palms and canes. Unger (1850) combined Culmites with Caulinites BRONGNIART, 1828a , another fossil-genus used for monocot stems and rhizomes, but later ( Unger 1852) separated them again, with no clear explanation given in either case. Until the status of the type of Culmites is established, it is difficult to see what role the generic name can have in palaeobotanical taxonomy.

g

c