1643) Proposal to conserve the fossil pollen morphogeneric name Classopollis against Corollina and Circulina

The generic names Classopollis Pflug 1953, Corollina Malyavk. 1949, and Circulina Malyavk. 1949 are fossil pollen morphogeneric names for one of the important late Mesozoic fossil pollen forms, which in its numerous species ranges from Mid-Triassic to early Cenozoic in age. The plants producing the pollen are various fossil conifers, as shown by in situ pollen in fossil male cones. This form and other morphogeneric units of similar morphology comprise the Circumpolles group of fossil pollen (cf. Traverse, Paleopalynology: 224-227. 1988). The intertwining and complex nomenclatural history of the generic names involved causes confusion to the present. Malyavkina (l.c.) described and illustrated what in my opinion is clearly recognizable as this form of fossil pollen from the early Jurassic of south-central parts of the then Soviet Union in the Kazakhstan/Urals areas. (She did not give more specific locality information.) She provided two generic names for variants of the basic form: Corollina and Circulina. Malyavkina illustrated species referred to Corollina and Circulina with simple line drawings. Many palynologists find these drawings inadequate, though I have never doubted that they are sufficient to demonstrate that she was describing forms of fossil circumpolloid pollen now generally referred to either Corollina or, more often, Classopollis. The fact that Malyavkina presented her descriptions partly in the form of keys, so that one must assemble the total desc iption of Corollina and Circulina from phrases on different pages, is not a legitimate objection to the validity of her publication. Malyavkina included only one species, C. compacta, in her treatment of Corollina and hence it provides the type. However, she included two species in Circulina, C. funifera and C. simplex, without indicating either as type. The earliest acceptable lectotype selection is that of Potoni6 (l.c. 1966) who selected C. funifera. Potonie's choice must be followed under Art. 10.5 of the ICBN. Klaus (Jahrb. Geol. Bundesanst., Sonderb. 5, 165, P1. 36, Fig. 58, 1960) designated C. meyeriana Klaus as "neotype" for a redefined Circulina, but this is not acceptable under Art. 10.2 of ICBN, and that usage of the name Circulina need not be considered here. Pflug (1953), who presumably did not know of Malyavkina's work, because Soviet scientific publications were not widely circulated in the West at the time of his research, published the generic name, Classopollis, for this same form of pollen from the Early Jurassic of Germany, using good photographic illustration and understandable description. The fact that Pflug thought that the form was angiospermid and tricolpate, and that he did not designate or preserve type specimens, does not affect the validity of his publication. The problem is one of priority. Corollina and Circulina were published four years before Classopollis. A clear majority of paleopalynologists, however, have accepted Classopollis as the correct generic name for this sort of fossil pollen. If one accepts Circulina and Corollina as validly published by Malyavkina in 1949, as one must, one or the other name is a potential threat to the use of Classopollis, and therefore both are proposed here for rejection. There are prominent paleopalynologists who use Corollina Malyavkina for the whole CorollinaCirculina-Classopollis complex, and will probably continue to do so perfectly correctly unless Classopollis is conserved against it. I know that I would continue to use it. This confuses the literature. It appears to me, a strong advocate in the past for the legitimacy and adoption of Malyavkina's names, that the best way to secure nomenclatural stability in this situation is to conserve Classopollis against Corollina, and also against