(2757) Antiarideae Dumort., Anal. Fam. Pl.: 16. 1829 [Angiosp.: Mor.], nom. utique rej. prop.

Typus: Antiaris Lesch.

Since 1847, members of the involucrate clade of Moraceae Gaudich. (nom. cons.), sister to Ficus L., have been treated as the tribe Olmedieae Trécul (in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 3, 8: 77, 126. 1847, ‘Olmediae’), or more recently as the tribe Castilleae C.C. Berg (in Acta Bot. Neerl. 26: 78. 1977). Investigation by an anonymous reviewer of a manuscript submitted to Taxon has recently revealed that Antiarideae Dumort. (Anal. Fam. Pl.: 16. 1829) has priority over both Olmedieae and Castilleae but has never been in regular use.

Antiarideae was described by Dumortier as a tribe of the family “Ficineae” (i.e., Ficaceae Bercht. & J. Presl = Moraceae) characterized by involucrate pistillate inflorescences and based on Antiaris Lesch. (in Ann. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 16: 478. 1810). Olmedieae Trécul, characterized by subconcave pistillate inflorescences with imbricate involucral bracts, was based on Olmedia Ruiz & Pav. (Prodr.: 129. 1794) and also contained the genera Pseudolmedia Trécul, Perebea Aubl., Helicostylis Trécul, Noyera Trécul (now included in Perebea), and Castilla Cerv. (as ‘Castilloa’). Bureau (in Candolle, Prodr. 17: 281. 1873), apparently unaware of Dumortier's name, expanded Olmedieae to include Antiaris, Naucleopsis Miq., and Ogcodeia Bureau (now included in Naucleopsis), and maintained Maquira Aubl. (which Trécul had doubtfully associated with Olmedia) as a distinct genus. Bureau's concept of Olmedieae persisted in treatments of Moraceae for a hundred years, subject of course to differences of opinion with regard to synonymies and generic limits and sometimes as a subtribe, as in works by Bentham and Hooker (Gen. Pl. 3: 341–395. 1880), Engler (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. III(1): 83. 1888), Corner (in Gard. Bull. Singapore 19: 243. 1962) and Berg (in Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 7: 1. 1972).

Berg (in Acta Bot. Neerl. 26: 73–82. 1977) reduced Olmedia to a section of Trophis P. Browne in the tribe Moreae. In order to maintain a tribe consisting of the remaining genera in the former Olmedieae, Berg described a new tribe Castilleae C.C. Berg, typified by Castilla, apparently unaware of the name Antiarideae. Castilleae has been used in major treatments of Moraceae since that time (Berg, in Bull. Jard. Bot. Natl. Belg. 47: 267–407. 1977; Berg in Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 83. 2001; Berg & al. in Fl. Males., Ser. 1, Spermat. 17: 1–146. 2006), although a recent phylogenetic study supports the continued use of Olmedieae (Gardner & al. in bioRxiv 2020.04.08.030452, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.08.030452, in Taxon, in rev.).

Antiarideae has appeared in very few generalized checklists of suprageneric names including Pfeiffer (Nomencl. Bot. 1: 1345. 1858) and Reveal's Indices Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium (http://www.plantsystematics.org/reveal/pbio/fam/allspgnames.html), but it has apparently not been taken up in any floras or specialized Moraceae treatments apart from a 2007 dissertation thesis (Ribeiro, Stud. Phylog. Taxon. Evol. Moraceae. Thesis, Univ. Estadual Campinas. 2007, http://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REPOSIP/315027).

By contrast, Olmedieae, and later Castilleae, have long been in widespread use. A Google Scholar (4 June 2020) search reports 178 records for Olmedieae, 147 records for Castilleae, and 2 records for Antiarideae. Likewise, a full‐text search of the Biodiversity Heritage Library (4 June 2020) produced 69 records for Olmedieae, 9 records for Castilleae, and a single record for Antiarideae. Although the search engine results certainly do not capture all mentions of these names in the literature, they highlight the relative obscurity of the name Antiarideae.

Although unrelated to the historical disuse of Antiarideae, it bears mentioning that under the present Code, Antiarideae is a legitimate name only by virtue of the conservation of its type, Antiaris, against the earlier homotypic Ipo Pers. (Syn. Pl. 2: 566. 1807). The original type of the former is Antiaris toxicaria, which is considered to be a new combination based on Ipo toxicaria Pers. because both authors referred to the “Arbor toxicaria” of Rumphius (Herb. Amboin. 2: 263–268. 1741), that by Leschenault (l.c.: 476, footnote) being considered an indirect reference (Art. 41.3) to Persoon's name. Had Antiaris not been conserved (Briquet in Wettstein & al., Verh. Int. Bot. Kongr. Wien.: 137. 1906), Antiarideae, typified by Antiaris, would be illegitimate under Art. 19.6 of the ICN (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), and priority in this case would go to Olmedieae or Castilleae, depending on whether Olmedia were included in the tribe.

Failure to reject Antiarideae would compel the use of that obscure name for a major tribe of Moraceae going forward while rendering the names used for that tribe in the major treatments of Moraceae to date incorrect because the placement of Antiaris in the tribe has not been in doubt since Bureau included it. Rejecting Antiarideae will advance the same goal that likely motivated the conservation of Antiaris: to promote nomenclatural stability in Moraceae by preserving the use of names that have been in longstanding and constant use.

（2757）Antiarideae Dumort。，肛门。am PL：16 1829 [Angiosp .: Mor的。]，NOM。尤蒂克河 支柱。

Typus：Antiaris Lesch。

自1847年以来，Moraceae Gaudich的进化支成员。（nom。cons。），是榕属（Ficus L. ）的姐姐，曾被视为奥尔梅迪亚（OmmedieaeTrécul）部落（在Ann.Sci。Nat。，Bot。，serr。3，8：77，126. 1847，' Olmediae '），或最近的Castilleae CC Berg部落（Acta Bot。Neerl。26：78. 1977）。匿名审阅者对提交给Taxon的手稿进行的调查最近表明，Antiarideae Dumort。（Anal。Fam。Pl.：16。1829）比Olmedieae和Castilleae都具有优先权，但从未经常使用。

杜莫里埃（Dumortier）将抗芳草科描述为“ Ficineae ”家族的一个部落（即Ficaceae Bercht。＆J. Presl = Moraceae），其特征是无花果皮花序，并基于Antiaris Lesch。（在《 Ann。Mus。Natl。Hist。Nat。16：478. 1810》中）。OlmedieaeTrécul基于Olmedia Ruiz＆Pav ，其特征是凹凹的雌蕊花序具with片状总vo片。（Prodr：129 1794），并且还包含在属Pseudolmedia Trécul，Perebea Aubl。，Helicostylis Trécul，Noyera Trécul（现在包括在Perebea），和卡斯蒂利亚宫颈。（如“ Castilloa ”）。局（在Candolle，Prodr。17：281. 1873），显然不知道Dumortier的名字，扩大了Olmedieae包括Antiaris，Naucleopsis Miq。和Ogcodeia局（现在包括在Naucleopsis中），并维护了Maquira Aubl。（其Trécul曾怀疑地关联Olmedia），为不同的属。主席团的“蜜ae科”概念一直存在于桑科的治疗中一百年来，当然在同义和通用限制方面有时会出现意见分歧，有时甚至是一个子部落，例如边沁（Bentham）和胡克（Hooker）（Gen. Pl。3：341–395。1880），英格勒（Engler） ＆Prantl，Nat。Pflanzenfam。III（1）：83. 1888），Corner（在Gard。Bull。Singapore 19：243. 1962）和Berg（在Neotrop。Monogr。7：1. 1972）。

Berg（在Acta Bot。Neerl。26：73-82。1977中）将Olmedia还原为Moreae部落Trophis P. Browne的一部分。为了维持一个由前奥尔梅迪亚氏族的剩余属组成的部落，伯格描述了一个新的由Castilla代表的Castilleae CC Berg部落，显然没有意识到Antiarideae这个名字。卡斯蒂利亚已被用于桑科的主要治疗方法从那时起（Berg，in Bull。Jard。Bot。Natl。Belg。47：267-407。1977; Berg在Fleo Neotrop。Monogr。83. 2001; Berg等人在Fl.Males，Ser.1 ，Spermat。17：1-146。2006），尽管最近的系统发育研究支持继续使用Olmedieae（Gardner等人，bioRxiv 2020.04.08.030452，https：//doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.08.030452，在Taxon中） （修订版）。

Antiarideae已出现在很少的附生名称的通用清单中，包括Pfeiffer（Nomencl。Bot。1：1345。1858）和Reveal的《植物名称最小附生植物索引》（http://www.plantsystematics.org/reveal/pbio/fam/allspgnames）。 html），但除了2007年的论文论文（Ribeiro，Stud.Phylog.Taxon.Evol.Moraceae.Thesis，Univ.Estadual Campinas.2007，http：// ）之外，显然没有在任何菌群或专门的桑科植物中进行处理。 www.repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REPOSIP/315027）。

相比之下，Olmedieae和后来的Castilleae早已被广泛使用。Google学者（2020年6月4日）搜寻报告178记录为Olmedieae，147记录为Castilleae和2记录为Antiarideae。同样，对生物多样性遗产图书馆进行的全文检索（2020年6月4日）为Olmedieae创造了69条记录，为Castilleae提供了9条记录，为Antiarideae提供了一条记录。尽管搜索引擎的结果当然并未涵盖文献中对这些名称的所有提及，但它们突出了Antiarideae名称的相对模糊性。

虽然无关的历史淘汰Antiarideae，它承担提的是，目前下设代码，Antiarideae是一个合法的名称只能凭借其类型，养护的见血封喉，对早期的同型的Ipo个人 （Syn.Pl.2：566.1807）。前者的原始类型是Antiaris toxicaria，它被认为是基于Ipo toxicaria Pers的新组合。因为两位作者都提到了Rumphius的“ Arbor toxicaria ”（Herb。Amboin。2：263–268。1741），Leschenault（lc：476，脚注）被认为是Persoon名称的间接参考（第41.3条）。曾有Antiaris并非保守（Briquet in Wettstein等人，Verh。Int。Bot。Kongr。Wien.：137。1906），以Antiaris为代表的Antiarideae在Art。ICN的第19.6条（Turland等人，Regnum Veg。159. 2018），在这种情况下，优先权应由Olmedieae或Castilleae决定，具体取决于部落中是否包括Olmedia。

否则拒绝Antiarideae会迫使对的一大部落使用这种不起眼的名字桑科前进，而渲染的主要治疗方法用于该部落的名字桑科至今不正确，因为安置见血封喉的部落一直没有怀疑因为主席团将其包括在内。拒绝Antiarideae会提前同一个目标很可能是出于养护见血：促进命名法的稳定性桑科通过保留使用已在长期的，经常使用的名称。