(2779) Aspleniopteris difformis Sternb., Vers. Fl. Vorwelt 1(4, Tent.): xxi. 1825, nom. cons. prop.

Typus: Czech Republic, Chomutov, Bílina [ad Comotovium, Bilinam], Sternberg (Nat. Mus., Prague, No. G 2113); [illustrated in] Sternberg, Vers. Fl. Vorwelt 1(2): t. 24, fig. 1. Jan–Aug 1821.

(≡) Phyllites comptoniifolius Brongn. in Cuvier, Dict. Sci. Nat. 26: 359. Mai 1823, nom. rej. prop.

Leaves of the fossil sweet‐fern Comptonia difformis (Sternb.) Berry are commonly described from Oligocene to Miocene sediments in the Northern Hemisphere. This sweet‐fern is a common part of upland extra‐basinal vegetation. The leaves resemble ferns in some respect and therefore were described as such in the early years of palaeobotany.

The epithet difformis appears in combination with several generic names and has been used since the 19th century in a number of publications, particularly those dealing with Tertiary fossil plants (Berry in Amer. Naturalist 40: 485–520. 1906; Kotlaba in Čas. Nár. Mus., Odd. Přír. 131: 49–55. 1962; Teodoridis & al. in Bull. Geosci. 92: 185–210. 2017). As was already pointed out in an earlier paper by Kvaček (in Taxon 53: 548–550. 2004), Kašpar M. Sternberg, in his fundamental work Versuch einer geognostisch botanischen Darstellung der Flora der Vorwelt, published the name Asplenium difforme Sternb. (Vers. Fl. Vorwelt 1(2): 29, 33. 1821 [‘diforme’]) for leaf impressions from the Miocene deposits of the Most Basin in the vicinity of the towns of Chomutov and Bílina in North Bohemia (Czech Republic). However, it has been clear since soon after its publication that Asplenium difforme Sternb. is an illegitimate name, being a later homonym of A. difforme R. Br., described as a recent fern species (Brown, Prodr.: 151. 1810). Fortunately, Sternberg later (Vers. Fl. Vorwelt 1(4, Tent.): xxi. 1825) decided to introduce a new genus Aspleniopteris Sternb. to accommodate pinnate fossil foliage resembling ferns. To this genus he assigned, perhaps as a reaction to the unwanted homonymy, the above‐mentioned taxon under the new name Aspleniopteris difformis Sternb. Although based on the illegitimate Asplenium difforme Sternb., the name is legitimate, being treated as a nomen novum based on the same type as described in the current Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018: Art. 58.1).

Only a few years earlier, Brongniart (in Cuvier, Dict. Sci. Nat. 26: 359. 1823), probably also realising the problem with homonymy, published the name Phyllites comptoniifolius Brongn. as a replacement for Asplenium difforme Sternb. A few years later, for some reason unknown today, Brongniart published in his Prodrome d'un histoire des végétaux fossiles yet another name for the same taxon – Comptonia acutiloba Brongn. (Prodr. Hist. Vég. Foss.: 141. 1828). The scientific community used this new name almost exclusively throughout the 19th century, while the name Phyllites comptoniifolius Brongn. fell completely into oblivion. Comptonia acutiloba Brongn. is based on the same type as Aspleniopteris difformis Sternb., being a later nomenclatural synonym. The name C. acutiloba, although more frequently used, was therefore always superfluous and illegitimate, and its use probably resulted from Brongniart's authority and the problem with Sternberg's unfortunate homonymy. In 1906, Berry (l.c.), during his revision of the fossil representatives of the genus realised the problem, and according to the rule of priority, prioritised Sternberg's epithet in a new combination: Comptonia difformis (Sternb.) Berry (l.c.: 495). The name C. difformis has been used more frequently since then, but the name C. acutiloba has not been completely abandoned, used for example by Pimenova (in Trudy Geol. Inst. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 12: 1–133. 1937), Andreánszky (in Stud. Biol. Hung. 5: 1–151. 1966), Vassiljev & Zhilin (in Taxon 17: 557–558. 1968), Bůžek (in Rozpr. Ústředn. Geol. 36: 1–118. 1971), and Bůžek & al. (in Čas. Mineral. Geol. 37: 117–134. 1992; in Sborn. Nár. Mus. Praze, Řada B, Přír. Vědy 52: 1–72. 1996). The most important publications in which the name C. difformis has been used are: Kotlaba (in Preslia 33: 130–140. 1961; l.c. 1962), Knobloch (in Sbor. Ústř. Úst Geol. 26: 241–315. 1961; in Documenta Naturae 120: 1–302.1998), Wilde & Frankenhäuser (in Acta Palaeobot., Suppl. 2: 447–463. 2000 [“1999”]), Liang & al. (in Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 163: 52–63. 2010), Kovar‐Eder (in Acta Palaeobot. 56: 329–440. 2016), and Teodoridis & al. (l.c.). A description of the complete history and correct use of the name C. difformis was published by one of us (Kvaček, l.c.).

The name Phyllites comptoniifolius Brongn. was recently re‐discovered by Alexander Doweld as the earliest name for this Tertiary sweet‐fern. Doweld used it in the new combination Comptonia comptoniifolia (Brongn.) Doweld (in Acta Palaeobot. 57: 223–232. 2017). However, this new combination was established strictly on nomenclatural priority, with no regard for accepted paleobotanical practice and context. Therefore, although it is correct, it will cause even more problems in current nomenclature, rather than creating order. There is no publication containing, or researcher using, the name Comptonia comptoniifolia, except for the original paper by Doweld himself. This is exactly why the process of conservation is in place.

To avoid the disruption to taxonomic nomenclature that using Doweld's solution would cause, we propose to conserve the name Aspleniopteris difformis Sternb. (≡ Comptonia difformis (Sternb.) Berry) against Phyllites comptoniifolius Brongn. as neither that name nor its new combination Comptonia comptoniifolia (Brongn.) Doweld have ever been used in actual paleobotanical practice.

（2779）Aspleniopteris difformis Sternb。，Vers。图 Vorwelt 1（4，帐篷）：xxi。1825，nom。缺点 支柱。

伤寒：捷克共和国，霍穆托夫，比利纳[比奥纳姆（Colinovium），比利纳姆]，斯特恩贝格（Sternberg）（国家博物馆，布拉格，G 2113号）；[图示] Sternberg，Vers。图 沃尔沃特1（2）：t。图24 1. 1821年1月至8月。

（≡）Phyllites comptoniifolius Brongn。在居维叶区 科学 纳特 26：359。Mai1823，nom。rej。支柱。

化石甜蕨Comptonia difformis（Sternb。）浆果的叶子通常被描述为北半球的渐新世至中新世沉积物。甜蕨是陆地上的基础外植物的常见部分。叶子在某些方面类似于蕨类植物，因此在古植物学的早期就被描述为蕨类植物。

该称号莎草出现在结合几个通用名称，并已自19世纪以来在许多出版物，尤其是涉及第三纪植物化石（贝瑞阿梅尔博物40使用：。485-520 1906; Kotlaba在CAS NAR Mus。，Odd。Přír。131：49-55。1962； Teodoridis等人，Bull。Geosci。92：185-210。2017）。正如Kvaček早先的论文（在Taxon 53：548–550。2004）中已经指出的那样，KašparM. Sternberg在其基础著作Versuch einer geognostisch botanischen Darstellung der Flora der Vorwelt中发布了Asplenium difforme Sternb。（Vers。Fl。Vorwelt 1（2）：29，33 . 1821 [' diforme']），用于北波西米亚（捷克共和国）Chomutov和Bílina镇附近最盆地盆地的中新世沉积。但是，从其出版后不久就可以清楚地看出，Asplenium difforme Sternb。是一个不合法的名字，是A. difforme R. Br。的后一个谐音，被描述为一种最近的蕨类（Brown，Prodr .: 151. 1810）。幸运的是，Sternberg后来（Vers。Fl。Vorwelt 1（4，Tent。）：xxi。1825）决定引入一个新属Aspleniopteris Sternb。容纳类似于蕨类的羽状化石叶子。为此，他将上述分类单元以新名称“ Aspleniopteris difformis”的形式分配给了这个分类，也许是对不想要的同名的一种反应。斯特恩 尽管基于非法的Asplenium difforme Sternb。，该名称是合法的，但根据与当前《法规》（Turland等人，Regnum Veg.159.2018：第58.1条）中所述的相同类型被视为术语命名。

仅在几年前，Brongniart（在Cuvier，Dict。Sci。Nat。26：359。1823中），也可能意识到同名问题，才发布了Phyllites comptoniifolius Brongn这个名字。替代Asplenium difforme Sternb。几年后，由于今天未知的原因，Brongniart在他的Prodrome d'un histoire desvégétaux化石中发表了同一分类群的又一个名字-康普顿草acutiloba Brongn。（Hist。Vég。Foss博士：141。1828）。科学界几乎在整个19世纪都使用了这个新名称，而Phyllites comptoniifolius Brongn这个名称却被使用。完全被遗忘。酸枣（Comptonia acutiloba Brongn）。基于与differmis sternb。，后来的命名法的同义词。acutiloba这个名字虽然被更频繁地使用，但它始终是多余和非法的，它的使用可能是由于Brongniart的权威以及Sternberg不幸的同名问题所致。1906年，贝里（lc）在修改属化石代表的过程中意识到了这个问题，并根据优先权原则，将斯特恩伯格的上位词归为新组合：柏木（Stoneb。）贝里（lc：495） 。从那时起，名称C. difformis被更频繁地使用，但是名称C. acutiloba尚未完全被遗弃，例如Pimenova（在Trudy Geol。Inst。Akad。Nauk SSSR 12：1–133。1937中），Andreánszky（在Stud。Biol。Hung。5：1–151。1966），Vassiljev中使用＆Zhilin（Taxon 17：557–558。1968），Bůžek（在Rozpr。Ústředn。Geol。36：1–118。1971）和Bůžek等。（在Čas。Mineral。Geol。37：117–134。1992；在Sborn。Nár。Mus。Praze，ŘadaB，Přír。Vědy52：1-72。1996）。最重要的出版物，名称为C. difformis曾经使用过的有：科特拉巴（在Preslia 33：130–140。1961; lc 1962），诺布洛奇（在Sbor。Ústř.ÚstGeol。26：241–315。1961;在Documenta Naturae 120：1–302.1998），王尔德＆Frankenhäuser（in Acta Palaeobot。，Suppl。2：447-463。2000 [“ 1999”]），Liang等人。（Rev. Palaeobot。Palynol。163：52-63。2010），Kovar-Eder（Acta Palaeobot。56：329-440。2016）和Teodoridis等人。（lc）。我们中的一个人（Kvaček，lc）发表了关于C. difformis名称的完整历史和正确使用的描述。

名称Phyllites comptoniifolius Brongn。最近被亚历山大·多维尔（Alexander Doweld）重新发现，是该三级甜蕨的最早名称。Doweld在新组合Comptonia comptoniifolia（Brongn。）Doweld中使用了它（在Acta Palaeobot。57：223–232。2017中）。但是，这种新组合是严格按命名优先权建立的，而不考虑公认的古植物实践和背景。因此，尽管它是正确的，但它将在当前的术语中引起更多的问题，而不是造成顺序问题。除多维尔德本人的原始论文外，没有任何出版物包含或没有使用过名称Comptonia comptoniifolia的研究人员。这正是保护过程到位的原因。

为避免使用Doweld的解决方案对分类学术语造成干扰，我们建议保留名称Aspleniopteris difformis Sternb。（≡Comptonia difformis（Sternb。）Berry）对Phyllites comptoniifolius Brongn。因为该名称及其新组合Comptonia comptoniifolia（Brongn。）都未曾在实际的古植物学实践中使用过。