Curly genus name / type issue
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Tony Rees
Jun 7, 2026, 7:00:45 AMJun 7
to Taxacom
Dear Taxacomers,
I have been collating information about calcitarchs (microfossils: think acritarchs but calcareous) over a while for my IRMNG database, also decided to create a Wikipedia article on the same since one did not exist, now does as of today, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcitarch. My problem concerns the genus *Calcisphaera* Williamson, possibly the archetypal calcitarch geneus name, possibly not, see explanation in the article under "History of study". Basically there are 2 alternative type species which affect the placement of the genus (and potentially flow-on for the placement of the various species) as well as rival claims between botany and zoology for its placement. I would be grateful if anyone interested could take a look at what I have written there and offer any insights as to what should be the current position (which seem to be at least 3 multiple ones), as well as what should happen to the the calcitarch species' names if the charophyte affinity of the type should be followed... any thoughts appreciated!
Regards - Tony
Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
Tony Rees
Jun 7, 2026, 3:37:54 PMJun 7
to Taxacom
OK, a quick(?) precis of the situation:
- Williamson, 1880 (p. 520 ff.) creates Calcisphaera for a range of small calcified fossils from Wales, no type designated, a mixed bag of things although C. laevis, the first described taxon is what becomes informally known as a "calcisphere", most of which later become the formal "group" Calcitarcha (in 2009, name created by Verseegh et al.). Williamson's paper is a botanical one but he notes that Calcisphaera might "ultimately prove to be animal and not vegetable forms". Of the 6 Welsh (UK) taxa he erects, he says of C. laevis, the first mentioned: "I select this for our first consideration, because it exhibits these organisms in their simplest form." (note, the others are not calcispheres, as presently understood).
A correspondent also supplies some larger material from the U.S. which Williamson names C. robusta, believing it to be "closely related" to the Welsh forms, but noting that its ridges bear some similarity to a Chara (a charophyte alga, related to higher plants, not a protist or other microalgal group).
- Miller, 1889, writing for a US audience, designates C. robusta as the type thus (according to the ICBN, to my understanding, possibly wrong), Calcisphaera becomes technically a genus of charophytes, since in that context, C. robusta is now classified (as a fossil gyrogonite i.e. spore) in Moellerinaceae per AlgaeBase, https://www.algaebase.org/search/species/detail/?species_id=179404 (I have not checked this further). This means that if C. laevis is not a charophyte, it (plus any related forms subsequently erected) will require a new generic name.
- Andrews, 1955, in "Index of generic names of fossil plants, 1820-1950", appears to have overlooked (or ignored) Miller's work, and lists Calcisphaera with C. laevis as type. However in Andrews' introduction, he says: "First, no official authority stands behind the proposed type. Where a type species has not been indicated [in the original work], the first described species is taken as the type." I take this to mean, nevertheless, that Andrews' type designations will stand where they are the first such designation, but possibly (?definitely) not if an earlier type designation exists.
- Peck and Morales, 1966 (charophyte workers) did not support Miller's type designation for Calcisphaera (maybe on the grounds that it was not representative of the genus), and excluded Calcisphaera from the charophytes. They said that Miller's designation was invalid and pointed instead to Andrews' use of C. laevis as type; but I do not know whether this view is legitimate or not. Here is their justification:
"Article PB. 4 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature states: "The type of a genus of fossil plants is the first described species which shows such characters as are necessary for distinguishing the genus from other taxa". Consequently, C. laevis, not C. robusta, is the legitimate type species of Calcisphaera, and the genus is thereby removed from the Charophyta."
Now if this is true, they would thus consider Miller's type designation superfluous as well as undesirable, leading them to declare it "invalid" I am preuming. But I have not looked into the relevant Code section, or chased it further to see if it carries through to the present ICNafp.
- Subsequently the genus (presumably with C. laevis as type) was also claimed to be a foraminifer (animal protist) by some workers, although Loeblich & Tappan, 1988, placed it on their list of "Generic taxa erroneously regarded as foraminifers", describing it as a calcisphere. This has not stopped some more recent workers (example: Vachard, 2016) treating Calcisphaera as the type genus of family "Calcisphaeridae Williamson, 1881 emend. Vachard and Téllez-Giron, 1986", and superfamily Calcisphaeroidea nov., in Foraminifera, thus under the ICZN Code.
- Meanwhile the "calcisphere" (aka calcitarch) workers like B. Mamet say the situation is settled, Calcisphaera is a calcitarch (thus under botanical nomenclature), stating: (p. 332): "After a period of taxonomic instability, the genus is now stabilized and the type designation by Andrews (1955) [i.e., C. laevis] is now generally accepted." (Mamet, B. (2006). "Taxonomy of Viséan marine calcareous algae, Fernie, British Columbia (Canada)". Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia. 112 (3): 323–357)
In any event, Calcisphaera does make the "official list" of "Taxa assigned to Calcisphaeres [sic]", i.e. Table 1 in Versteegh et al., 2009, where the group is formally designated, see https://www.pismin.com/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2009.00854.x .
So the question remains: first, should Calcisphaera be treated as a charophyte (e.g. per AlgaeBase) with C. robusta as type, or as a calcitarch (or foraminifer), with C. laevis as type, and under which ICBN rule should that decision be made?
As a flow-on, if the charophyte affiliation is the only legal one per the Code, a different generic name would be needed for the calcisphere form/s (C. laevis etc.) - maybe that might be Granulosphaera Derville, 1931 (https://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1055173), given there as an objective syn. of Calcisphaera if the latter is accepted as a foraminer (but I have not chased that further).
Second, is not a charophyte, do I (wearing my IRMNG hat) "prefer" to treat it as a calcitarch (Biota incertae sedis) or foraminifer? both view are out there in the literature, who to follow...
Any assistance gratefully appreciated!
- Tony
Tony Rees
Jun 7, 2026, 3:51:46 PMJun 7
to Taxacom
In case this helps - Index Nominum Genericorum (ING) lists C. robusta as the type, not C. laevis, thus:
Calcisphaera W. C. Williamson, Philos. Trans. 171: 521. 1880.
LT.: C. robusta W. C. Williamson (vide S. A. Miller, N. Amer. Geol. Paleont. 155. 1889)
Middle Devonian; U.S.A. (Erie County, Ohio).
FOSSIL-CHAROPHYCEAE-TROCHILISCACEAE (2) 9 Feb 1996
LT.: C. robusta W. C. Williamson (vide S. A. Miller, N. Amer. Geol. Paleont. 155. 1889)
Middle Devonian; U.S.A. (Erie County, Ohio).
FOSSIL-CHAROPHYCEAE-TROCHILISCACEAE (2) 9 Feb 1996
Francisco Welter-Schultes
Jun 7, 2026, 4:47:57 PMJun 7
to tax...@googlegroups.com
Dear Tony,
Interesting request, and possibly hard to be solved reliably by a single
person.
Where you write "the Code" you should probably indicate which one, since
you seem to be switching between ICZN and ICNafp. I am not always sure
which one is meant.
I can only talk with some reliability about the zoological nomenclature.
> - Subsequently the genus (presumably with C. laevis as type) was also
> claimed to be a foraminifer (animal protist) by some workers
From a nomenclatural point of view I would not use the expression
"claimed", instead I would desibe the situation in a neutral mode.
We would need to know which author was the first who did accept
Calcisphaera as a foraminiferan and used zoological nomenclature. The
first author who did that made ICZN Art. 10.5 applicable: the name was
not at first but later classified as animal. Since the name was
correctly introduced by Williamson 1880 in botany, the rest of Art. 10.5
applies and so the name is available in zoology.
Art. 10.5 only applies to the availability of the name, Calcisphaera
Williamson, 1880. The rest follows the regulatory frame of the ICZN Code.
This applies also to the type species: I understand that 6 species were
originally included in 1880 ("6 taxa" should probably read "7 taxa", 6
species and one genus). Under the ICZN Code only one of those 6 species
can be designated subsequently as type.
This seems to correspond to the regulation in the ICNafp Code, however
in zoology we would not talk about "the first described [one] species",
since in such a situation all 6 species were described simultaneously.
The ICZN Code would not talk of the first species in a list as the
"first described species". In any case under both Codes C. robusta would
not serve as type.
In zoology C. robusta would definitely be excluded as type if this was
not among the six species included by Williamson 1880.
The ICZN Code does somewhat have some gaps. A subsequent type
designation would follow some rules of Chapter 15 in the ICZN Code, but
no Article explains the precise conditions for genus-group names made
available under Art. 10.5 in a case where the first six included species
by Williamson 1880 have never been classified as animals themselves (in
other words: if some Calcisphaera species were accepted as
foraminiferans, but not the six species that were included in 1880).
Art. 67 seems to suggest that a plant species that has never been
classified as an animal could serve as a type species of an animal
genus. At least there is no statement to the contrary.
In nomenclature we cannot answer the question "should Calcisphaera today
be accepted as a plant or as an animal?". My personal recommendation, as
in many other cases, would be to be cautious and to accept various
options to classify such a taxon. For those who consider Calcisphaera as
a charophyte the taxonomic context is this one, for those who consider
it a foraminiferan the taxonomic context is that one.
This is what I would also recommend in cases of competing
classifications inside animal groups.
If this helps
Francisco
Am 07.06.2026 um 21:37 schrieb Tony Rees:
> OK, a quick(?) precis of the situation:
>
> - Williamson, 1880 (p. 520 ff.) creates *Calcisphaera* for a range of small
> Welsh forms, but noting that its ridges bear some similarity to a *Chara*
> context, *C. robusta* is now classified (as a fossil gyrogonite i.e. spore)
> representative of the genus), and excluded *Calcisphaera *from the
> *as the type genus of family "Calcisphaeridae Williamson, 1881 emend.
> *Rivista
> Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia*. *112* (3): 323–357)
> charophyte (e.g. per AlgaeBase) with *C. robusta* as type, or as a
> calcitarch (or foraminifer), with *C. laevis* as type, and under which ICBN
> https://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1055173),
> given there as an objective syn. of *Calcisphaera *if the latter is
Interesting request, and possibly hard to be solved reliably by a single
person.
Where you write "the Code" you should probably indicate which one, since
you seem to be switching between ICZN and ICNafp. I am not always sure
which one is meant.
I can only talk with some reliability about the zoological nomenclature.
> - Subsequently the genus (presumably with C. laevis as type) was also
> claimed to be a foraminifer (animal protist) by some workers
"claimed", instead I would desibe the situation in a neutral mode.
We would need to know which author was the first who did accept
Calcisphaera as a foraminiferan and used zoological nomenclature. The
first author who did that made ICZN Art. 10.5 applicable: the name was
not at first but later classified as animal. Since the name was
correctly introduced by Williamson 1880 in botany, the rest of Art. 10.5
applies and so the name is available in zoology.
Art. 10.5 only applies to the availability of the name, Calcisphaera
Williamson, 1880. The rest follows the regulatory frame of the ICZN Code.
This applies also to the type species: I understand that 6 species were
originally included in 1880 ("6 taxa" should probably read "7 taxa", 6
species and one genus). Under the ICZN Code only one of those 6 species
can be designated subsequently as type.
This seems to correspond to the regulation in the ICNafp Code, however
in zoology we would not talk about "the first described [one] species",
since in such a situation all 6 species were described simultaneously.
The ICZN Code would not talk of the first species in a list as the
"first described species". In any case under both Codes C. robusta would
not serve as type.
In zoology C. robusta would definitely be excluded as type if this was
not among the six species included by Williamson 1880.
The ICZN Code does somewhat have some gaps. A subsequent type
designation would follow some rules of Chapter 15 in the ICZN Code, but
no Article explains the precise conditions for genus-group names made
available under Art. 10.5 in a case where the first six included species
by Williamson 1880 have never been classified as animals themselves (in
other words: if some Calcisphaera species were accepted as
foraminiferans, but not the six species that were included in 1880).
Art. 67 seems to suggest that a plant species that has never been
classified as an animal could serve as a type species of an animal
genus. At least there is no statement to the contrary.
In nomenclature we cannot answer the question "should Calcisphaera today
be accepted as a plant or as an animal?". My personal recommendation, as
in many other cases, would be to be cautious and to accept various
options to classify such a taxon. For those who consider Calcisphaera as
a charophyte the taxonomic context is this one, for those who consider
it a foraminiferan the taxonomic context is that one.
This is what I would also recommend in cases of competing
classifications inside animal groups.
If this helps
Francisco
Am 07.06.2026 um 21:37 schrieb Tony Rees:
> OK, a quick(?) precis of the situation:
>
> calcified fossils from Wales, no type designated, a mixed bag of things
> although *C. laevis*, the first described taxon is what becomes informally
> known as a "calcisphere", most of which later become the formal "group"
> Calcitarcha (in 2009, name created by Verseegh et al.). Williamson's paper
> is a botanical one but he notes that *Calcisphaera *might "ultimately prove
> Calcitarcha (in 2009, name created by Verseegh et al.). Williamson's paper
> to be animal and not vegetable forms". Of the 6 Welsh (UK) taxa he erects,
> he says of *C. laevis*, the first mentioned: "I select this for our first
> consideration, because it exhibits these organisms in their simplest form."
> (note, the others are not calcispheres, as presently understood).
>
> A correspondent also supplies some larger material from the U.S. which
> Williamson names *C. robusta*, believing it to be "closely related" to the
> (note, the others are not calcispheres, as presently understood).
>
> A correspondent also supplies some larger material from the U.S. which
> Welsh forms, but noting that its ridges bear some similarity to a *Chara*
> (a charophyte alga, related to higher plants, not a protist or other
> microalgal group).
>
> - Miller, 1889, writing for a US audience, designates *C. robusta* as the
> microalgal group).
>
> type thus (according to the ICBN, to my understanding, possibly wrong),
> *Calcisphaera* becomes technically a genus of charophytes, since in that
> context, *C. robusta* is now classified (as a fossil gyrogonite i.e. spore)
> in Moellerinaceae per AlgaeBase,
> https://www.algaebase.org/search/species/detail/?species_id=179404 (I have
> not checked this further). This means that if *C. laevis* is not a
> https://www.algaebase.org/search/species/detail/?species_id=179404 (I have
> charophyte, it (plus any related forms subsequently erected) will require a
> new generic name.
>
> - Andrews, 1955, in "Index of generic names of fossil plants, 1820-1950",
> appears to have overlooked (or ignored) Miller's work, and lists *Calcisphaera
> new generic name.
>
> - Andrews, 1955, in "Index of generic names of fossil plants, 1820-1950",
> *with *C. laevis* as type. However in Andrews' introduction, he says:
> "First, no official authority stands behind the proposed type. Where a type
> species has not been indicated [in the original work], the first described
> species is taken as the type." I take this to mean, nevertheless, that
> Andrews' type designations will stand where they are the first such
> designation, but possibly (?definitely) not if an earlier type designation
> exists.
>
> - Peck and Morales, 1966 (charophyte workers) did not support Miller's type
> designation for *Calcisphaera *(maybe on the grounds that it was not
> "First, no official authority stands behind the proposed type. Where a type
> species has not been indicated [in the original work], the first described
> species is taken as the type." I take this to mean, nevertheless, that
> Andrews' type designations will stand where they are the first such
> designation, but possibly (?definitely) not if an earlier type designation
> exists.
>
> - Peck and Morales, 1966 (charophyte workers) did not support Miller's type
> representative of the genus), and excluded *Calcisphaera *from the
> charophytes. They said that Miller's designation was invalid and pointed
> instead to Andrews' use of *C. laevis* as type; but I do not know whether
> this view is legitimate or not. Here is their justification:
>
> *"Article PB. 4 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature states:
>
> "The type of a genus of fossil plants is the first described species which
> shows such characters as are necessary for distinguishing the genus from
> other taxa". Consequently, C. laevis, not C. robusta, is the legitimate
> type species of Calcisphaera, and the genus is thereby removed from the
> Charophyta."*
> shows such characters as are necessary for distinguishing the genus from
> other taxa". Consequently, C. laevis, not C. robusta, is the legitimate
> type species of Calcisphaera, and the genus is thereby removed from the
>
> Now if this is true, they would thus consider Miller's type designation
> superfluous as well as undesirable, leading them to declare it "invalid" I
> am preuming. But I have not looked into the relevant Code section, or
> chased it further to see if it carries through to the present ICNafp.
>
> - Subsequently the genus (presumably with C. laevis as type) was also
> claimed to be a foraminifer (animal protist) by some workers, although
> Loeblich & Tappan, 1988, placed it on their list of "Generic taxa
> erroneously regarded as foraminifers", describing it as a calcisphere. This
> has not stopped some more recent workers (example: Vachard, 2016)
> treating *Calcisphaera
> Now if this is true, they would thus consider Miller's type designation
> superfluous as well as undesirable, leading them to declare it "invalid" I
> am preuming. But I have not looked into the relevant Code section, or
> chased it further to see if it carries through to the present ICNafp.
>
> - Subsequently the genus (presumably with C. laevis as type) was also
> claimed to be a foraminifer (animal protist) by some workers, although
> Loeblich & Tappan, 1988, placed it on their list of "Generic taxa
> erroneously regarded as foraminifers", describing it as a calcisphere. This
> has not stopped some more recent workers (example: Vachard, 2016)
> *as the type genus of family "Calcisphaeridae Williamson, 1881 emend.
> Vachard and Téllez-Giron, 1986", and superfamily Calcisphaeroidea nov., in
> Foraminifera, thus under the ICZN Code.
>
> - Meanwhile the "calcisphere" (aka calcitarch) workers like B. Mamet say
> the situation is settled, *Calcisphaera *is a calcitarch (thus under
> Foraminifera, thus under the ICZN Code.
>
> - Meanwhile the "calcisphere" (aka calcitarch) workers like B. Mamet say
> botanical nomenclature), stating: (p. 332): "After a period of taxonomic
> instability, the genus is now stabilized and the type designation by
> Andrews (1955) [i.e., *C. laevis*] is now generally accepted." (Mamet, B.
> instability, the genus is now stabilized and the type designation by
> (2006). "Taxonomy of Viséan marine calcareous algae, Fernie, British
> Columbia (Canada)"
> <https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/RIPS/article/download/6345/6300/19043>.
> Columbia (Canada)"
> *Rivista
> Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia*. *112* (3): 323–357)
>
> In any event, Calcisphaera does make the "official list" of "Taxa assigned
> to Calcisphaeres [sic]", i.e. Table 1 in Versteegh et al., 2009, where the
> group is formally designated, see
> https://www.pismin.com/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2009.00854.x .
>
> So the question remains: first, should *Calcisphaera *be treated as a
> In any event, Calcisphaera does make the "official list" of "Taxa assigned
> to Calcisphaeres [sic]", i.e. Table 1 in Versteegh et al., 2009, where the
> group is formally designated, see
> https://www.pismin.com/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2009.00854.x .
>
> charophyte (e.g. per AlgaeBase) with *C. robusta* as type, or as a
> calcitarch (or foraminifer), with *C. laevis* as type, and under which ICBN
> rule should that decision be made?
>
> As a flow-on, if the charophyte affiliation is the only legal one per the
> Code, a different generic name would be needed for the calcisphere form/s
> (C. laevis etc.) - maybe that might be *Granulosphaera *Derville, 1931 (
>
> As a flow-on, if the charophyte affiliation is the only legal one per the
> Code, a different generic name would be needed for the calcisphere form/s
> https://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1055173),
> given there as an objective syn. of *Calcisphaera *if the latter is
Tony Rees
Jun 7, 2026, 11:08:39 PMJun 7
to Francisco Welter-Schultes, Taxacom
Thanks, Francisco... in case it helps, yes, C. robusta (type species as selected by Miller, 1889) is one of the original species described by Williamson.
I have located the 2 competing type designations in their original works, reproductions below. Miller's work deals with both plant and animal fossils so it is not clear where he would place this genus, while Andrews' work is notionally plants only (though may also include some edge cases).
Basically I ("we") just need to decide which of these is applicable, everything else follows from there - C. robusta means the genus is a charophyte (and C. laevis etc. need a different generic name), C. leavis means that the genus can be a calcitarch (calcisphere), or foraminifer if that is preferred by a few (possibly in the minority), with C. robusta possibly being a synonym of something else in another pre-existing genus of charophytes.
As explained above (several emails), ING (Index Nominum Genericorum) and AlgaeBase use Miller's type designation, Peck & Morales and later "calcitarch" workers use the Andrews designation, for reasons that may or may not bear scrutiny... so input from someone familiar with the botanical Code (and those stated reasons e.g. by Peck & Morales, plus Mamet 2006) would certainly be appreciated - in other words, is Miller's type designation to be accepted, or is it "invalid" per the statement of Peck & Morales, 1966...
Additional comments are very welcome,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Taxacom" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to taxacom+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/taxacom/edd85fa5-0e24-4b6c-86ea-7e69369fd808%40gwdg.de.
Francisco Welter-Schultes
Jun 8, 2026, 7:04:20 AMJun 8
to Tony Rees, Taxacom
Thanks Tony.
This changes the situation. I assumed that Williamson 1880 described
only Welsh forms and Miller 1889 considered C. robusta as closely
related to the Welsh forms. So I assume that C. robusta was not a Welsh
form and thus not originally included in 1880.
So under these circumstances C. robusta would be the type under the ICZN
Code, designated by Miller 1889.
Botanical Code: I understand ICNafp Art. 10.5 to read that the first
valid subsequent type designation stands, in this case Miller 1889. The
ICNafp Code distinguishes between a regular type designation and a
"mechanical" one, and in Art. 10.7 (a) explains that designating "the
first species in order" would be a determination of type in a mechanical
way. A mechanical type designation is weaker than a regular one, and can
even be superceded (in zoology we would say "can be set aside by a
subsequent type designation").
Sonce Miller 1889 designated the type in a regular way, these Articles
would suggest that subsequent authors could not supercede that by a
mechanically induced type designation (first species in order).
However this is just the way I read the ICNafp Code.
Best wishes
Francisco
Am 08.06.2026 um 05:08 schrieb Tony Rees:
> Thanks, Francisco... in case it helps, yes, *C. robusta* (type species as
> charophyte (and *C. laevis* etc. need a different generic name), *C. leavis*
This changes the situation. I assumed that Williamson 1880 described
only Welsh forms and Miller 1889 considered C. robusta as closely
related to the Welsh forms. So I assume that C. robusta was not a Welsh
form and thus not originally included in 1880.
So under these circumstances C. robusta would be the type under the ICZN
Code, designated by Miller 1889.
Botanical Code: I understand ICNafp Art. 10.5 to read that the first
valid subsequent type designation stands, in this case Miller 1889. The
ICNafp Code distinguishes between a regular type designation and a
"mechanical" one, and in Art. 10.7 (a) explains that designating "the
first species in order" would be a determination of type in a mechanical
way. A mechanical type designation is weaker than a regular one, and can
even be superceded (in zoology we would say "can be set aside by a
subsequent type designation").
Sonce Miller 1889 designated the type in a regular way, these Articles
would suggest that subsequent authors could not supercede that by a
mechanically induced type designation (first species in order).
However this is just the way I read the ICNafp Code.
Best wishes
Francisco
Am 08.06.2026 um 05:08 schrieb Tony Rees:
> Thanks, Francisco... in case it helps, yes, *C. robusta* (type species as
> selected by Miller, 1889) is one of the original species described by
> Williamson.
>
> I have located the 2 competing type designations in their original works,
> reproductions below. Miller's work deals with both plant and animal fossils
> so it is not clear where he would place this genus, while Andrews' work is
> notionally plants only (though may also include some edge cases).
>
> [image: Calcisphaera types.jpg]
>
> Basically I ("we") just need to decide which of these is applicable,
> everything else follows from there - *C. robusta* means the genus is a
> Williamson.
>
> I have located the 2 competing type designations in their original works,
> reproductions below. Miller's work deals with both plant and animal fossils
> so it is not clear where he would place this genus, while Andrews' work is
> notionally plants only (though may also include some edge cases).
>
> [image: Calcisphaera types.jpg]
>
> Basically I ("we") just need to decide which of these is applicable,
> charophyte (and *C. laevis* etc. need a different generic name), *C. leavis*
> means that the genus can be a calcitarch (calcisphere), or foraminifer if
> that is preferred by a few (possibly in the minority), with *C. robusta*
Tony Rees
Jun 8, 2026, 2:46:50 PMJun 8
to Francisco Welter-Schultes, Taxacom
Yes, Francisco, I think that is the crux of the matter - Andrews, 1955 (reaffirmed in Peck & Morales, 1966) appears to have applied applied the "mechanical" method, apparently unaware (in Andrews' case) that Miller (1889) had already formally designated a type. Index Nominum Genericorum would be aware of both Miller's and Andrews' works and made a conscious decision to use the Miller designation as nomenclaturally correct, which agrees with your analysis.
OK, moving on, now we have a situation where a nomenclaturally incorrect name (let us call it Calcisphaera sensu Andrews) is in "current use" by prominent workers in the areas of Calcitarcha (botany) and Foraminifera (zoology). This could be resolved by one of 2 (or even 3) ways: 1 and/or 2: a petition to the relevant Code governing organization to designate a new type for Calcisphaera that fits the non-charophyte situation, or 3, changing all of the currently assigned species of Calcisphaera that are not charophytes to a different genus, or new name. It appears that Granulosphaera Derville, 1931 (https://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1055173), given there as an objective syn. of Calcisphaera if the latter is accepted as a foraminer, might be a candidate (also mentioned in the calcitarch context by Mamet, 2006 in the synonymy of C. laevis, apparently Granulosphaera is monotypic) but I have not seen that work.
Or of course, "current use" just continues without any attempt to resolve the nomenclatural issue... but at least I can note the situation in my database. I may also call it to the attention of authors of the various works involved and see what may happen.
Best wishes - Tony
Tony Rees
Jun 8, 2026, 4:42:47 PMJun 8
to Francisco Welter-Schultes, Taxacom
OK, I have now found some earlier (1956) discussion of this case, ref is Henning Horn Af Rantzien. (1956). An Annotated Check-List of Genera of Fossil Charophyta. Micropaleontology, 2(3), 243–256. doi:10.2307/1484179. Horn Af Rantzien states (this is just OCR text, forgive the errors):
---------
Calcisphaera WaLIAMSON, 1880, Roy. Soc. London, Philos.
Trans., vol. 171, no. 14, p. 520.
Typification: Calcisphaera robusta WILLIAMSON, 1880,
p. 523, pl. 20, fig. 81 (lectotype of genus, MILLER, 1889,
p. 155; since this lecto-typification implies grave nomenclatural inconveniences, the writer would suggest that
Miller's choice be rejected).
Reference: Trochiliscus Karpinsky (as lectotypified by
Miller, an earlier taxonomic synonym of this name).
Calcisphaera was established by Williamson (loc. cit.)
for doubtful organisms from the Carboniferous of Wales
with suggested affinity to radiolarians. A few charophyte
gyrogonites from the North American Devonian, of whose
nature Williamson was unaware, were compared with the
Carboniferous fossils and with some hesitation referred
to Calcisphaera as Calcisphaera robusta. Williamson chose
no generic type. Since the discussion was restricted mainly
to the Carboniferous remains, Miller's proposal to typify
Calcisphaera by Calcisphaera robusta was somewhat unfortunate, for the name Calcisphaera was apparently applied to Carboniferous fossils of supposed radiolarian
nature. The charophyte gyrogonites were redescribed by
Karpinsky (1906, p. 123) as Trochiliscus robustus. The
taxonomic synonymy of Calcisphaera robusta and Trochiliscus is clear, but no one has suggested that the latter is
synonymous with the Carboniferous remains referred to
Calcisphaera. However, as lectotypified by Calcisphaera
robusta, Calcisphaera has priority over Trochiliscus, although it was relegated to synonymy with the latter by
Peck (1934b, p. 105). If the established name Trochiliscus
is to be retained, it will have to be protected from the
priority of Calcisphaera. Perhaps a simpler procedure is to
cancel Miller's lectotype, a practice permitted by Article 19
of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
---------------
I do not know if the then proposed solution of "cancel[ing] Miller's lectotype" was permissible then or now, or indeed has ever been done; I presume, as previously noted, that today it would require an application to the relevant Commission. It does raise the issue of synonymy between the earlier name Calcisphaera with the later name Trochiliscus in Charophyta, the former of which could maybe be interpreted as an unused senior synonym in practice, though a more formal nomenclatural decision would no doubt be preferable...
Just adding this a supplementary information,
Francisco Welter-Schultes
Jun 8, 2026, 5:00:57 PMJun 8
to Tony Rees, Taxacom
Hi Tony,
If used as a zoological name, Calcisphaera would need a foraminiferan as
type species. Currently its type is C. robusta, presumably a charophyte,
hence not a foraminiferan. The ICZN Commission could set aside the
existing type species and fix as type some foraminiferan species, but
this would only make sense if Calcisphaera was a well-know and widely
used name in a long established accustomed usage in Foraminifera. This
is certainly not the case here, so an action by the Commission would
probably have little chances to pass.
So I suggest to neglect that option and go on with the botanical options
to use that name.
Best wishes
Francisco
Am 08.06.2026 um 22:42 schrieb Tony Rees:
> OK, I have now found some earlier (1956) discussion of this case, ref
> is Henning
> Horn Af Rantzien. (1956). *An Annotated Check-List of Genera of Fossil
> Charophyta. Micropaleontology, 2(3), 243–256. *doi:10.2307/1484179. Horn Af
> no. 14, p. 520. Typification: *Calcisphaera robusta* WILLIAMSON, 1880, p.
> *Calcisphaera robusta*. Williamson chose no generic type. Since the
> unfortunate, for the name *Calcisphaera *was apparently applied to
> robustus*. The taxonomic synonymy of *Calcisphaera robusta* and *Trochiliscus
> *is clear, but no one has suggested that the latter is synonymous with the
> Carboniferous remains referred to *Calcisphaera*. However, as lectotypified
> by *Calcisphaera robusta*, *Calcisphaera *has priority over *Trochiliscus*,
> have to be protected from the priority of *Calcisphaera*. Perhaps a simpler
>> https://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1055173),
>> apparently *Granulosphaera *is monotypic) but I have not seen that work.
If used as a zoological name, Calcisphaera would need a foraminiferan as
type species. Currently its type is C. robusta, presumably a charophyte,
hence not a foraminiferan. The ICZN Commission could set aside the
existing type species and fix as type some foraminiferan species, but
this would only make sense if Calcisphaera was a well-know and widely
used name in a long established accustomed usage in Foraminifera. This
is certainly not the case here, so an action by the Commission would
probably have little chances to pass.
So I suggest to neglect that option and go on with the botanical options
to use that name.
Best wishes
Francisco
Am 08.06.2026 um 22:42 schrieb Tony Rees:
> OK, I have now found some earlier (1956) discussion of this case, ref
> is Henning
> Charophyta. Micropaleontology, 2(3), 243–256. *doi:10.2307/1484179. Horn Af
> Rantzien states (this is just OCR text, forgive the errors):
> ---------
> *Calcisphaera *WaLIAMSON, 1880, Roy. Soc. London, Philos. Trans., vol. 171,
> ---------
> no. 14, p. 520. Typification: *Calcisphaera robusta* WILLIAMSON, 1880, p.
> 523, pl. 20, fig. 81 (lectotype of genus, MILLER, 1889, p. 155; since this
> lecto-typification implies grave nomenclatural inconveniences, the writer
> would suggest that Miller's choice be rejected). Reference: *Trochiliscus*
> lecto-typification implies grave nomenclatural inconveniences, the writer
> Karpinsky (as lectotypified by Miller, an earlier taxonomic synonym of this
> name). *Calcisphaera *was established by Williamson (loc. cit.) for
> doubtful organisms from the Carboniferous of Wales with suggested affinity
> to radiolarians. A few charophyte gyrogonites from the North American
> Devonian, of whose nature Williamson was unaware, were compared with the
> Carboniferous fossils and with some hesitation referred to *Calcisphaera *as
> to radiolarians. A few charophyte gyrogonites from the North American
> Devonian, of whose nature Williamson was unaware, were compared with the
> *Calcisphaera robusta*. Williamson chose no generic type. Since the
> discussion was restricted mainly to the Carboniferous remains, Miller's
> proposal to typify *Calcisphaera* by *Calcisphaera robusta* was somewhat
> unfortunate, for the name *Calcisphaera *was apparently applied to
> Carboniferous fossils of supposed radiolarian nature. The charophyte
> gyrogonites were redescribed by Karpinsky (1906, p. 123) as *Trochiliscus
> robustus*. The taxonomic synonymy of *Calcisphaera robusta* and *Trochiliscus
> *is clear, but no one has suggested that the latter is synonymous with the
> Carboniferous remains referred to *Calcisphaera*. However, as lectotypified
> by *Calcisphaera robusta*, *Calcisphaera *has priority over *Trochiliscus*,
> although it was relegated to synonymy with the latter by Peck (1934b, p.
> 105). If the established name *Trochiliscus *is to be retained, it will
> have to be protected from the priority of *Calcisphaera*. Perhaps a simpler
> procedure is to cancel Miller's lectotype, a practice permitted by Article
> 19 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
> ---------------
>
> I do not know if the then proposed solution of "cancel[ing] Miller's
> lectotype" was permissible then or now, or indeed has ever been done; I
> presume, as previously noted, that today it would require an application to
> the relevant Commission. It does raise the issue of synonymy between the
> earlier name *Calcisphaera *with the later name *Trochiliscus* in
> 19 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
> ---------------
>
> I do not know if the then proposed solution of "cancel[ing] Miller's
> lectotype" was permissible then or now, or indeed has ever been done; I
> presume, as previously noted, that today it would require an application to
> the relevant Commission. It does raise the issue of synonymy between the
> Charophyta, the former of which could maybe be interpreted as an unused
> senior synonym in practice, though a more formal nomenclatural decision
> would no doubt be preferable...
>
> Just adding this a supplementary information,
>
> Regards - Tony
>
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 at 04:46, Tony Rees <tonyr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, Francisco, I think that is the crux of the matter - Andrews, 1955
>> (reaffirmed in Peck & Morales, 1966) appears to have applied applied the
>> "mechanical" method, apparently unaware (in Andrews' case) that Miller
>> (1889) had already formally designated a type. Index Nominum Genericorum
>> would be aware of both Miller's and Andrews' works and made a conscious
>> decision to use the Miller designation as nomenclaturally correct, which
>> agrees with your analysis.
>>
>> OK, moving on, now we have a situation where a nomenclaturally incorrect
>> name (let us call it *Calcisphaera *sensu Andrews) is in "current use" by
> senior synonym in practice, though a more formal nomenclatural decision
> would no doubt be preferable...
>
> Just adding this a supplementary information,
>
> Regards - Tony
>
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 at 04:46, Tony Rees <tonyr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, Francisco, I think that is the crux of the matter - Andrews, 1955
>> (reaffirmed in Peck & Morales, 1966) appears to have applied applied the
>> "mechanical" method, apparently unaware (in Andrews' case) that Miller
>> (1889) had already formally designated a type. Index Nominum Genericorum
>> would be aware of both Miller's and Andrews' works and made a conscious
>> decision to use the Miller designation as nomenclaturally correct, which
>> agrees with your analysis.
>>
>> OK, moving on, now we have a situation where a nomenclaturally incorrect
>> prominent workers in the areas of Calcitarcha (botany) and
>> Foraminifera (zoology). This could be resolved by one of 2 (or even 3)
>> ways: 1 and/or 2: a petition to the relevant Code governing organization to
>> designate a new type for *Calcisphaera* that fits the non-charophyte
>> Foraminifera (zoology). This could be resolved by one of 2 (or even 3)
>> ways: 1 and/or 2: a petition to the relevant Code governing organization to
>> situation, or 3, changing all of the currently assigned species
>> of Calcisphaera that are not charophytes to a different genus, or new name.
>> It appears that *Granulosphaera *Derville, 1931 (
>> of Calcisphaera that are not charophytes to a different genus, or new name.
>> https://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1055173),
>> given there as an objective syn. of *Calcisphaera *if the latter is
>> accepted as a foraminer, might be a candidate (also mentioned in the
>> calcitarch context by Mamet, 2006 in the synonymy of *C. laevis*,
>> apparently *Granulosphaera *is monotypic) but I have not seen that work.
Tony Rees
Jun 10, 2026, 3:42:54 PM (13 days ago) Jun 10
to Francisco Welter-Schultes, Taxacom
Thanks, Francisco, for those insights.
OK, I have re-formulated my "taxonomic note" on the genus in my system to read as follows, per the above discussion:
----------
This generic name is used in both Charophyta and Calcitarcha (a group of incertae sedis microfossils) in recent literature. Charophyta is technically correct, based on the lectotypification of the genus by Miller, 1889 using C. robusta, a charophyte gyrogonite (spore) now classified in the later genus Trochiliscus, so technically Calcisphaera (unless re-typified e.g. by IAPT decision) becomes an unused senior synonym of Trochiliscus, although it is not yet listed as such here. However other workers e.g. Horn af Rantzien, 1956 have recommended that Miller's type designation be "set aside", or simply treated as invalid (Peck & Morales, 1966) so that the later usage of C. laevis as type (by Andrews, 1955 et seq) can be employed meaning that Calcisphaera becomes a calcitarch as possibly originally intended by Williamson (C. laevis is the first species he discusses), and used by recent (algal) calcitarch workers, also by some foraminiferal ones who view Calcisphaera as the type of a foraminiferal family, Calcisphaeridae. The situation probably requires application to the IAPT for a ruling on whether or not a new type could or should be designated for the genus; for the present it remains a charophyte, as also stated in Index Nominum Genericorum and AlgaeBase (2026 versions).
----------
I have mentioned this discussion to a prominent compiler of taxonomic data on algae (including Charophyta and most likely, Calcitarcha) to see whether there is any interest in making a formal application to IAPT from that axis; if I get any traction there I may updaye this email thread accordingly...
Regards to all - Tony
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages