(2741) Protophyllocladoxylon Kräusel in Abh. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., Math.‐Naturwiss. Abt., ser. 2, 47: 16. 1939 (post Mai), nom. cons. prop. Typus: P. dolianitii Mussa (in Bol. Div. Geol. Mineral. Brasil 182: 17. 1958), typ. cons. prop.

Protophyllocladoxylon was published by Kräusel (in Abh. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., Math.‐Naturwiss. Abt., ser. 2, 47: 16. 1939) in an article of 140 pages (and 23 figures) on the fossil flora of Egypt. The genus is an important one with more than 20 species, distributed from the Carboniferous to the late Cretaceous, on all continents including Antarctica. The genus is of phylogenetic (Marguerier in Compt. Rend. Congr. Natl. Soc. Savantes, Sec. Sci. 102: 79–97. 1979) and biogeographical (Fletcher & al. in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 208: 43–49. 2014) significance. Some of the most important Mesozoic species are mentioned towards the end of this proposal.

Kräusel started with a thorough description of the new species Protophyllocladoxylon leuchsii (‘leuchsi ’), then he compared it with several genera, and arrived at the conclusion that it should be placed in a new genus, for which he presented this diagnosis (translated from German by us): “Conifer wood without resin canals, tracheid pitting araucarian, crossfield pitting phyllocladoid (oopores).”

Then he compared it with Mesembrioxylon libanoticum W.N. Edwards (in Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 10, 4: 401. 1929) from the Upper Jurassic or Lower Cretaceous of Syria and stated that “Beyond question this is also a Protophyllocladoxylon ” (our translation). He even wondered if he should combine these two species – no; then he gave a detailed diagnosis of this species and mentioned its origin.

The type material of Protophyllocladoxylon leuchsii was collected in 1911–1912 by the Austrian geologist Kurt Leuchs (1881–1949), who had studied at the Ludwig‐Maximilians‐Universität in Munich, where after several expeditions he became a “Privatdozent” (private lecturer) from 1919 to 1925. The origin is described as being the foothill of the “Djebel Dabadîb”, north of “Charge” (today Djebel Ain Umm El Dababib near El‐Kharga), Egypt, and from a geological level known as the Nubian Sandstone. The accession number given by Kräusel is “Mü1020”; the prefix “Mü” stands for “Paläontologische Staatsammlung München”. However, the material cannot be traced in the holdings of the SNSB – Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Geologie in Munich (Michael Krings, pers. comm.) and also not in the collections of the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfurt (where Leuchs was a professor in geology from 1925 to 1936). The type material for P. leuchsii has to be considered as lost.

It is impossible to check the real taxonomic position of the type material because since then, only Agathoxylon and Metapodocarpoxylon have been collected from the original type locality (Youssef & al. in Pl. Cell Biol. Developm. 12: 30–39. 2000). Similarly, all the four other Protophyllocladoxylon species described from the Mesozoic of northern Africa are now considered as belonging to Metapodocarpoxylon Dupéron‐Laudoueneix & D. Pons (in Giorn. Bot. Ital. 119: 151–166. 1985).

In 1949 (in Palaeontographica, Abt. B, Paläophytol. 89: 178), Kräusel again gave a diagnosis for Protophyllocladoxylon , and at that time he included three species in this genus: P. leuchsii , P. libanoticum (based on Mesembrioxylon libanoticum W.N. Edwards, which he had mentioned in 1939) and P. capense (basionym Phyllocladoxylon capense J. Walton), without designation of a type species for the generic name. After 1949 Kräusel did not contribute significantly any more about Protophyllocladoxylon except that in 1962 (in Trans‐Antarctic Expedition 1955–1958 Sci. Rep. 9: 136), he also mentioned Protophyllocladoxylon dolianitii Mussa.

Lepekhina & Yatsenko‐Khmelevsky (in Taxon 15: 67. 1966) cited P. leuchsii Kräusel as the type of Protophyllocladoxylon . There has arisen strong suspicion, however, that P. leuchsii and P. libanoticum are one and the same species, as only the latter has since been collected at the type locality of the former and at coeval localities in the same area (Philippe & al. in J. Biogeogr. 30: 389–400. 2003).

Even though the basionym of P. libanoticum was mentioned by Kräusel in 1939, this is not suitable as a replacement type of Protophyllocladoxylon because this species was designated as type of a new genus: Metapodocarpoxylon Dupéron‐Laudoueneix & D. Pons (l.c.: 160) – a genus that is generally accepted nowadays (e.g., by Bamford & al. in Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 186: 115–126. 2002). In 1985, Dupéron‐Laudoueneix & Pons did not provide a full and direct reference to P. libanoticum , the intended basionym of the type of Metapodocarpoxylon , even though they mentioned its type specimen: “l'espèce‐type se définit ainsi […] Holotype: échantillon n° V 20497a–f”. Pons (Mésozoïque Colombie: 47. 1988) later on validly published it as M. libanoticum .

The third species that Kräusel mentioned in 1949 also no longer belongs to Protophyllocladoxylon as presently understood: Phyllocladoxylon capense J. Walton constitutes the type of another new genus: Protocircoporoxylon Vogell. (in Palaeontographica, Abt. B, Paläophytol. 121: 40. 1967) – also a genus that is generally accepted nowadays (Youssef & al., l.c.; Bamford & al., l.c.; Philippe & al., l.c.; El‐Saadawi & al. in Hamimi & al., Geol. Egypt: 495–520. 2020).

Thus, we arrived at the conclusion to propose to conserve Protophyllocladoxylon Kräusel with P. dolianitii Mussa (in Bol. Div. Geol. Mineral. Brasil. 182: 17. 1958) as its conserved type. This wood has commonly been used for comparisons when discussing Protophyllocladoxylon and is also reported from Paraguay (Crisafulli & Herbst in Palaeobiol. Palaeoenvironm. 89: 95–109. 2009) and from Antarctica (Maheshwari in Palaeontographica, Abt. B, Paläophytol. 138: 1–43. 1972). Its type material is in the National Department of Mineral Production, Geology and Mineralogy, in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), under number 759. The slides are part of the fossil wood sheet collection of the Division of Geology and Mineralogy 451, 452, 453, 454, 566, 567, 568 and 569.

With this solution, most species can remain in Protophyllocladoxylon , besides P. dolianitii Mussa, among others also P. derbyi (E. Oliveira) H.K. Maheshw. (l.c.: 19), P. franconicum Vogell. (in Geol. Jahrb. 84: 311, 313. 1966), P. xenoxyloides Colette Serra (in Arch. Géol. Vietnam 8: 94, 103. 1966) and P. quedlinburgense J. Schultze‐Motel (in Monatsber. Deutsch. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 3: 418, 423. 1961). Moreover, several species that originally were published as species of Protophyllocladoxylon can then remain in Metapodocarpoxylon as taxonomic synonyms of M. libanoticum (W.N. Edwards) D. Pons: P. chudeaui Batton (in Publ. Centre Rech. Zones Arides, Sér. Géol. 6: 77. 1965), P. cortaderitaense C.A. Menéndez (in Revista Asoc. Geol. Argent. 11: 273–280. 1956, as ‘cortaderitaensis ’), P. diphtericum Batton & Boureau (in Publ. Centre Rech. Zones Arides, Sér. Géol. 6: 112. 1965), P. maurianum Gazeau (in Notes Mém. Serv. Géol. (Maroc) 210: 108. 1969), P. rosaeblancaense D. Pons (in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 11: 102. 1971) and P. subdiphthericum Dupéron‐Laudoueneix (in Compt. Rend. Congr. Natl. Soc. Savantes, Sec. Sci. 101: 147. 1978).

An important difference between Protophyllocladoxylon and Metapodocarpoxylon is the situation that the latter has in the cross fields, besides phyllocladoid oopores, also bordered oculipores.

（2741）阿布 省的ProtophyllocladladoxylonKräusel。拜耳 阿卡德 智慧，数学。绝对 2，47：16。1939年（邮编，迈）缺点 支柱。Typus：P. dolianitii Mussa（Bol。Div。Geol.Mineral.Brazil 182：17. 1958），典型。缺点 支柱。

Protophyllocladoxylon由Kräusel（发表于Abh。Bayer。Akad。Wiss。，Math.-Naturwiss.Abt。，ser.2，47：16. 1939）在140页（和23图）的文章上发表埃及。该属是重要的属，在包括南极洲在内的所有大陆上都有20多个物种，从石炭纪到白垩纪晚期分布。该属是系统发育的（Marguerier in Compt。Rend。Congr。Natl。Soc。Savantes，Sec。Sci。102：79–97。1979）和生物地理学（Fletcher等人在Rev. Palaeobot。Palynol。208：43– 49. 2014）意义。在本提案末尾提到了一些最重要的中生代物种。

Kräusel首先对新种Protophyllocladoxylon leuchsii（' leuchsi '）进行了详尽的描述，然后将其与多个属进行了比较，得出的结论是应将其置于一个新属中，为此他提出了这种诊断（我们的德文版）：“没有树脂渠的针叶树木材，气管凹坑的白垩质，横田凹坑的叶状类（oopores）。”

然后，他将其与叙利亚上侏罗世或下白垩纪的Mesembrioxylon libanoticum WN Edwards（Ann。Mag。Nat。Hist。，ser。10，4：401. 1929）进行了比较，并说：“毫无疑问，这也是一种Protophylloclocladoxylon ”（我们的翻译）。他甚至想知道是否应该将这两个物种结合在一起。然后他对该种进行了详细的诊断，并提到了其起源。

拟原叶丙酸杆菌的类型材料奥地利地质学家Kurt Leuchs（1881–1949）于1911–1912年收集，他曾在慕尼黑的路德维希·马克西米利安斯大学（University ofLudwig-Maximilians-Universität）学习，经过几次考察，他在1919至1925年间成为了“私人教授”。起源被描述为埃及“ Charge”（今天的Djebel Ain Umm El Dababib在El-Kharga附近）以北的“ DjebelDabadîb”的山麓，并被称为努比亚砂岩。Kräusel给出的登录号为“Mü1020”；前缀“Mü”代表“慕尼黑宫殿建筑事务所”（PaläontologischeStaatsammlungMünchen）。但是，该材料无法在SNSB的藏品中找到-慕尼黑的巴伐利亚国家博物馆和地质博物馆（Michael Krings，个人通讯。），也没有出现在法兰克福的Senckenberg博物馆（Leuchs在1925年至1936年间担任地质学教授）的藏品中。类型材料P. leuchsii必须被认为是丢失的。

无法检查类型材料的实际分类位置，因为从那时起，仅从原始类型位置收集了Agathoxylon和Metapodocarpoxylon（Youssef等人，Pl。Cell Biol。Developm。12：30-39。2000）。 。同样，从北非中生代开始描述的所有其他四个原原生动物物种现在都被认为属于元对生木脂杜邦-洛杜埃尼克斯和庞斯（在Giorn。Bot。Ital。119：151-166。1985）。

1949年（在Palaeontographica，ABT B，Paläophytol89：178），Kräusel又给了诊断Protophyllocladoxylon该属，并且在那个时候，他包括三种：P. leuchsii，P. libanoticum（基于Mesembrioxylon libanoticum WN他曾在1939年提到过爱德华兹（Edwards）和P. capense（原名Phyllocladoxylon capense J. Walton），但没有为通用名称指定类型种类。1949年后Kräusel无助显著任何更多Protophyllocladoxylon除了在1962年（在横穿南极考察队1955-1958科学众议员9：136），他也提到Protophyllocladoxylon dolianitii 穆萨

Lepekhina＆Yatsenko-Khmelevsky（在分类单元15：67 1966）中引用P. leuchsii Kräusel为一体的类型Protophyllocladoxylon。然而，人们已经有很强的怀疑，即P. leuchsii和P. libanoticum是同一物种，因为此后仅在前者的类型地区和同一地区的同辈地区收集了后者（Philippe等人）。 J. Biogeogr。30：389–400。2003）。

即使的基名P. libanoticum通过Kräusel于1939年提到的，这是不适合作为替换型的Protophyllocladoxylon因为该种类被指定为类型的新属的：Metapodocarpoxylon Dupéron-Laudoueneix＆D.脑桥（LC：160） –当今普遍接受的属（例如，Bamford等人在Palaeogeogr。Palaeoclimatol。Palaeoecol。186：115-126。2002中）。1985年，Dupéron-Laudoueneix＆Pons没有提供完整和直接的对立假单胞菌的指称，即拟对羟基苯丙交酯类型的拟名，即使他们提到了它的类型标本：“ l'espèce-typesedéfinitainsi […]原型：échantillonn°V 20497a-f”。Pons（MésozoïqueColombie：47. 1988）后来有效地将其出版为M. libanoticum。

克鲁瑟尔（Kräusel）在1949年提到的第三个物种也不再属于原叶丙酸梭菌：Phyllocladoxylon capense J. Walton构成了另一个新属：原环丙酸杜鹃。（在古生物学杂志，Ab。B，Paläophytol。121：40。1967中）–也是当今普遍接受的属（Youssef等，lc； Bamford等，lc； Philippe等，lc；萨达维）等人，见于埃及Geol的Hamimi等人：2020年至495-520年）。

因此，我们得出了一个结论，提出将原生质疏螺旋体与P. dolianitii Mussa（Bol。Div。Geol。Mineral。Brasil。182：17. 1958）保存为保守类型。这种木材通常在讨论Protophylloclocladoxylon时用于比较，据巴拉圭（Crisafulli＆Herbst in Palaeobiol。Palaeoenvironm。89：95-109。2009）和南极洲（Maheshwari in Palaeontographica，Abt。B，Paläophytol。138： 1–43。1972）。其类型材料位于里约热内卢（巴西）的国家矿产，地质和矿物学部门，编号为759。这些幻灯片是地质和矿物学部门的化石板材集合的一部分451、452、453 ，454、566、567、568和569。

通过这种解决方案，除多角拟杆菌（P. dolianitii Mussa）外，大多数物种还可以保留在Protophyllocladoxyoxylon中，除其他外，还有P. derbyi（E. Oliveira）HK Maheshw。（LC：19），P. franconicum Vogell。（在Geol。Jahrb。84：311，313 . 1966），P。xenoxyloides Colette Serra（在Arch。Géol。Vietnam 8：94，103. 1966）和P. quedlinburgense J. Schultze-Motel（在Monatsber。Deutsch。威斯康星州阿卡德，柏林3：418，423。1961）。此外，最初作为原叶丙酸龙舌兰的物种公开的几种物种可以保留在元龙脑中，作为M. libanoticum（WN Edwards）D. Pons的分类学同义词。P. chudeaui Batton（在中央研究区Zones Arides，Sér。Géol。6：77. 1965），P. cortaderitaense CAMenéndez（在Revista Asoc。Geol。Argent。11：273–280。1956，as'cortaderitaensis “），P. diphtericum BATTON＆Boureau（在公布中心言语报区Arides，SER GEOL 6：。112. 1965），P。maurianum Gazeau（在Notes MEM SERV GEOL（摩洛哥。）210：108。 1969年），罗萨布兰卡（Roseblancaense D. Pons）（修订于Palaeobot。Palynol。11：102. 1971年）和亚皮球杜比隆（Dupéron-Laudoueneix）（于Rend。Congr。Natl。Soc。Savantes，Sci。Sci。101： 147.（1978）。

原叶龙与间叶龙之间的一个重要区别是后者在横田中所处的位置，除了叶龙眼的卵圆也与球孔相邻。