[Taxacom] Nothogagaceae

[Stephen Thorpe]

"Both communicate the same relationships, one is more efficient"

But more disruptive (to all but the authors of the changes!)

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 1/6/18, Rob Smissen <SmissenR at landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote:

 Subject: [Taxacom] Nothogagaceae
 To: "taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Friday, 1 June, 2018, 5:01 PM
 
 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
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Send Taxacom mailing list submissions
 to: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
 Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 You can reach the person managing the
 list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 
 Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting
 Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.