Dear Chris,

I think the jury is still out on this one and we need to wait and see how the community reacts. The example you give in Cleal and Thomas on pollen/flowers is disingenuous. Probably a better example would be the Carboniferous pteridosperms where we have names for pollen organs, isolated seeds and foliage. In addition we know that certain seeds or pollen organs are attached to foliage. So in these cases the names for the pollen organs or seeds will compete with the names for the foliage on the basis of priority. Of course it is up the individual whether they regard a taxon that is applied to a seed or pollen organ and a synonym for the name applied to foliage or vice versa depending on which name came first. After all they are just taxonomic opinions of that particular researcher reviewed and referred by one or two peers.

The quoted case might seem "disingenuous" but it was in fact an argument given for retaining the old system of morphotaxa.

The fact that a seed is attached to a particular type of foliage does not require that you combine the fossil-taxa. You are classifying the fossils and not the parent plants. It only makes sense to combine the taxa if you are sure (or reasonably sure) that there is a one-to-one mapping of the seeds with the foliage; if similar seeds occur on more than one type of frond, or that type of frond can also have other types of ovule, then it is best if the two sets of fossil-taxa are kept separate.

Of course it is always up to individual workers to decide on accepting other peoples taxonomic judgements. I am against combining different organs because one problem that can arise is that such names may then end up being quoted in lists from other sites with no comment on which organ was found. This problem is comparable to ists of adpressions from a site including genera or species that were originally defined on petrified material. We must keep in mind problems that may arise by making decission that are 'botanical' rather than taxonomical.