[Taxacom] Nothogagaceae

[Rob Smissen]

Hi John

I agree it is a matter of personal choice whether to use names in Nothofagus or segragate genera. I also agree that Stephen's general position is not invalidated by my objection to his characterisation of mine as only about clade age. I characterise the monogeneric treatment of Nothofagaceae as "objectively inferior" based on two of the criteria articulated in our paper. I admit it was probably an unnecessarily polemical phrasing.

The crieteria I refer  to are
1. Primary taxonomic ranks (e.g. family, genus, species) as defined in the International Code of Nomenclature (ICN; McNeill et al. 2012) should be used first in a classification, and secondary ranks (e.g. subgenus) used as required.
2. Classifications should maximise phylogenetic information and minimise redundancy.

Although I do not propose that these are necessarily decisive in this or any similar debate, and they may not be universally agreeable, they are objective criteria.

I hold to my position that no competent taxonomist would erect a classification of these plants according to the pre Heenan and Smissen status quo if these were newly discovered organisms. It uses family and genus to name the same clade and unnecessarily introduces subgenus. Note that I am not saying for a moment that Hill and Read should not have recognised these taxa at subgeneric rank at the time they did. Apart from the argument of convenience in naming fossils (still perhaps a live argument), in accordance with many others at that time they continued to classify these plant  within Fagaceae.  That is no longer tenable.

Hence the old,
Nothofagaceae (1 genus)
Nothofagus (4 subgenera)
Nothofagus subgenus Nothofagus, Nothofagus subgenus Brassospora, Nothofagus subgenus Lophozonia, Nothofagus subgenus Fuscospora.

And the new,
Nothofagaceae (4 genera)
Nothofagus, Trisyngyne, Lophozonia, Fuscospora.

Both communicate the same relationships, one is more efficient.

Cheers
Rob







________________________________

Please consider the environment before printing this email
Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz