论文部分内容阅读
依据《国际植物命名法规》(维也纳法规)第6.4条, 我国两种银杏目植物化石具有不合法的形态种名。Sphenobaiera biloba S. N. Feng (1977)和S. rugata Z. Q. Wang (1984, Dec.) 分别为S. biloba Prynada (1938)和S.? rugata Z. Y. Zhou (1984, Mar.)的晚出同名。兹遵照国际植物命名法规(第7.3和53.1条)为上述两种植物分别建立新名称。另两个形态种名Ginkgoites elegans S. Yang, B. N. Sun & G. L. Shen (1988)和Baiera ziguiensis F. S. Meng (1987)在发表时都未曾明确指定模式标本, 因而是不合格发表的名称(法规第12和37条)。本文为之分别指定主模式, 并建立新种。Ginkgoites elegans Z. Y. Cao (1992)一名虽然被Ginkgoites elegans S. Yang, B. N. Sun & G. L. Shen (1988)先期占用, 因其为合格发表名称, 仍可应用, 而后一名称不是合格发表的, 并不具备命名上的优先权。
According to Article 6.4 of the International Bacterial Nomenclature (Vienna Regulation), two species of ginkgo-botanical fossils in our country have illegitimate morphological species names. Sphenobaiera biloba S. N. Feng (1977) and S. rugata Z. Q. Wang (1984, Dec.) are the late names of S. biloba Prynada (1938) and S. rugata Z. Y. Zhou (1984, Mar.), respectively. The new names are established for each of the above two plants in accordance with the International Plant Names Act (Articles 7.3 and 53.1). The other two morphological species names, Ginkgoites elegans S. Yang, BN Sun & GL Shen (1988) and Baiera ziguiensis FS Meng (1987), did not specify model specimens explicitly at the time of publication, 37). In this paper, we designate the main mode separately and establish a new species. Although Ginkgoites elegans ZY Cao (1992) was pre-empted by Ginkgoites elegans S. Yang, BN Sun & GL Shen (1988) and was still eligible for publication, the latter name was not qualified and did not have Name the priority.