ephedroids from the Early Cretaceous Yixian Formation in Liaoning ...

250 C. Rydin et al.: Cretaceous ephedroids from China
Figs. 12–15. Liaoxia elongata Rydin, S.Q. Wu et Friis sp. nov. 12–13 The central part of the plant is preserved
in this specimen (PB20723). Note the narrowly elongated cones with erect bracts, and a single, smaller and
rounded, probably immature cone. 14–15 The uppermost part of a reproductive shoot (PB20724). Leaves are
absent in this species. Scale bars = 1 cm in Figs. 12 and 15; 0.3 cm in Figs. 13 and 14. C =cone
from the Jurassic of France (Ephedrites armaillensis
Saporta), and Ephedrites antiquus,
described by Heer (1876) based on Jurassic
fossils from Ust-Balej, Siberia. Since then,
several authors have used Ephedrites in the
sense of Saporta (1891), (e.g. Wu et al. 1986,
Guo and Wu 2000, Sun et al. 2001), (see also
Table 1). The original description of Ephedrites
(Go¨ppert and Berendt 1845) is, however, validly
published and Ephedrites Saporta (1891) a
later illegitimate homonym. A further complication
is that the affinity to Ephedra of the
material described by Saporta and Heer has
been questioned (Arber and Parkin 1908,
Krassilov and Bugdaeva 1988), even by Saporta
himself (1891, p. 23). Krassilov and Bugdaeva
(1988) re-described the winged seeds of
Ephedrites antiquus Heer as parts of a possibly
welwitschioid plant: Heerala antiqua (Heer)
comb. nov. (Krassilov and Bugdaeva 1988).
Thus, Ephedrites Go¨ppert et Brendt is the
basionym of an angiosperm and should not be
used for ephedroid fossils. Conservation of the
homonym Ephedrites Saporta would be possible,
but is problematic because of the uncertain
affinity of the fossil material cited by Saporta
(Saporta 1891, p. 23 and 26). These issues have
also been discussed by Yang et al. (2005).