[Taxacom] Nothogagaceae

Fri Jun 1 03:45:09 CDT 2018

Right, so this is about disruption. Agreed.

I do hope the work Heenan and I did at least has value as a review of the evidence and a proper synonomy of the names for those who wish to delve into the older (pre Hill and Read) literature and the nomenclatural history.

I am not sure that splitting Nothofagus is less disruptive for Heenan and I than everyone else. I think what you mean is that we were paid for some of the work and get citations from it. If that is what you mean I take your point, probably fair. I understand, second hand, that some paleobotanists have been genuinely upset by our proposal and I regret that. I have reviewed papers using names in Nothofagus for plants I would classify in other genera, and I have given my opinion as to the correct names in Nothofagus. I am not trying to force anything on anyone. Certainly one Paleobotanist expressed his feelings strongly to me, but being Australian he still bought me a beer.

I'm also aware that some plant ecologists don't like name changes. However, none of my plant ecologist colleagues have expressed concern to me directly, and some have adopted the names.

Taxonomy is a strange mix of tradition and science, and that a volatile mix. I am not claiming that this is an argument of science against tradition, only that both are in play. While splitting a holophyletic genus is always going to have a subjective element, some of these issues can be quantified or at least elaborated and considered. I withdraw and apologise for my statement that "no competent taxonomist" would erect the pre Heenan and Smissen classification. I'm not in a position to say that. Rather, I would be interested in the opinion of anyone who would.

I am interested in hearing considered views by botanists (or others) negatively effected by splitting Nothofagus. I do have an open mind, and I think the underlying issues are useful for the taxonomic community.

Thanks John, Ken, Richard et al. for your considered input. Stephen, you've been baiting me a while on this, perhaps a more pedagological tone would be more effective?

More than happy to discuss offline from this point.

best wishes
Rob

________________________________
From: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 6:09:43 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; Rob Smissen
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nothogagaceae

"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.

________________________________

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