【摘要】 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。更多还原

【Abstract】 Two morphotaxa of ginkgoalean fossil plants from China bear illegitimate specific names, viz. Sphenobaiera biloba S. N. Feng (1977) and S. rugata Z. Q. Wang (Dec. 1984), that are heterotypic later homonyms of S. biloba Prynada (1938) and S.? rugata Z. Y. Zhou (Mar. 1984) respectively. Under Art. 53.1 and 7.3 of the Vienna Code, new specific names are proposed to supersede these illegitimate names. Two other names, viz. Baiera ziguiensis F. S. Meng (1987) and Ginkgoites elegans S. Yang, B. N. Sun & G. L. Shen (1988), were not validly published, because no nomenclatural type was definitely indicated. New species are instituted for the two morphotaxa here. Although the specific name Ginkgoites elegans Cao (1992) was antedated by Ginkgoites elegans S. Yang, B. N. Sun & G. L. Shen (1988), it still remains available for use, as the latter name has no status under the Vienna Code (Art. 12, 37) and thus no priority over Ginkgoites elegans Z. Y. Cao.更多还原